Skip to main content

Full text of "House Intelligence Committee transcript of its interview with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson"

See other formats







Tuesday, November 14, 2017 
Washington, D.C. 

The interview in the above matter was held in Room HVC-304, the Capitol, 
commencing at 2:13 p.m. 

Present: Representatives Conaway, King, Rooney, Ros-Lehtinen, Gowdy, 
Schiff, Himes, Speier, Quigley, Swalwell, Castro, and Heck. 











Good afternoon. This is an unclassified transcribed 

interview of Mr. Gienn Simpson. 

Thank you for speaking to us today. For the record, I am 


staff member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Others 
present today will introduce themselves when they speak. 

But before we begin, I have a security reminder. If you haven’t left your 
electronics outside, please do so at this time. That includes blackberries, 
iPhones, androids, tablets, iPads, or eReaders, laptops, iPods, MP3 players, 
recording devices, cameras, wireless headsets, pagers, and any type of bluetooth 
wristbands or watches. 

I also want to state a few things for the record. The questioning will be 
conducted by members and staff during their allotted time period. Some 
questions may seem basic, but that is because we need to clearly establish facts 
and understand the situation. Please do not assume we know any facts you have 
previously disclosed as part of any other investigation or review. 

We ask that you give complete and fulsome replies to questions, based on 
your best recollection. If a question is unclear or you are uncertain in your 
response, please let us know. And if you do not know the answer to a question or 
cannot remember, simply say so. 

During the course of this interview, we will take any breaks that you desire. 

This interview will be transcribed. There is a reporter making a record of 
these proceedings so we can easily consult a written compilation of your answers. 
Because the reporter cannot record gestures, we ask that you answer verbally. If 
you forget to do this, you might be reminded to do so. You may also be asked to 



spell certain terms or unusual phrases. 

You are entitled to have a lawyer present for this interview, though you are 
not required to do so. I see that you have counsel present and would ask that 
your attorneys make an appearance for the record. 

MR. LEVY: Joshua Levy, counsel for Glenn Simpson. 

MR. MUSE: I am Bob Muse, also counsel for Glenn Simpson. 

Thank you. To ensure confidentiality, we ask that you 

do not discuss this interview with anyone other than your -- 

MS. CLATTENBURG: Rachel Clattenburg, also for Glenn Simpson. 

To ensure confidentiality, we ask that you do not discuss 

the interview with anyone other than your attorney. 

Consistent with the committee rules of procedure, you and your counsel, if 
you wish, will have a reasonable opportunity to inspect the transcript of this 
interview in order to determine whether your answers were correctly transcribed. 
The transcript will remain in the committee's custody. The committee also 
reserves the right to request you return for additional questions should the need 

The process for today's interview is as follows: The majority will be given 
45 minutes to ask questions; and the minority will be given 45 minutes to ask 
questions. Immediately thereafter, we will take a 5-minute break, after which the 
majority will be given 15 minutes to ask questions; and the minority will be given 
15 minutes to ask questions. These time limits will be strictly adhered to, with no 
extensions being granted. Time will be kept for each portion of the interview, with 
warnings given at the 5-minute and 1-minute marks. 

Our record today will reflect that you are appearing voluntarily, pursuant to 




an agreement dated today. Under procedures adopted for the 115th Congress 
that have been provided to you along with Rule 11 of the rules of the House of 
Representatives, only you or your personal counsel may make objections during a 

I also want to state for the record that the agreement that has been struck 
today was signed by both Mr. Conaway and Mr. Schiff. 

Objections must be stated concisely and in a nonargumentative manner. If 
you or your counsel raises an objection, the interview will proceed and testimony 
taken is subject to any objection. You may refuse to answer a question only to 
preserve a testimonial privilege. When you or your counsel have refused to 
answer a question to preserve a testimonial privilege, the objection may be ruled 
on by the chairman after the interview has recessed. 

Finally, you are reminded that it is unlawful to deliberately provide false 
information to Members of Congress or staff. 

As this interview is under oath, please raise your right hand. Do you swear 
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 


| The record will reflect that the witness has been duly 


MR. CONAWAY: Gentlemen, thank you for coming. 

Adam, any comments before we start? 

MR. CONAWAY: All right. The floor is yours. 

MR. GOWDY: Good afternoon, Mr. Simpson. 

MR. SIMPSON: Good afternoon. 

MR. GOWDY: My name is Trey Gowdy. I’m from South Carolina. I will 




ask you questions initially. If I ask you any question that you don't understand, 
just ask me to rephrase it. 


MR. GOWDY: It won't be a trick question. It will be because I ask it 

Where do you work and how long have you worke d there? 

MR. SIMPSON: I work at a consulting firm here in Washington. The trade 
name is Fusion GPS. The entity, the legal entity is called Bean LLC. And I've 
been there since I believe 2010. And it's a research consulting firm. 

MR. GOWDY: All right. That was my next question. What does Fusion 
GPS do? 

MR. SIMPSON: It's a commercial research firm, sometimes also does 
strategy, public affairs. The primary line of work we're in is research. Generally, 
it specializes in public records research, other sort of journalistic style information 

MR. GOWDY: When someone uses the phrase "opposition research," 
does that mean anything to you? Does that have any trade meaning? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I was introduced to opposition research when I was 
a reporter on Capitol Hill. And so the conventional term is usually people who 
work on campaigns who are looking for information that will be useful in debates or 
other election related activities is my general historical understanding of the term. 

MR. GOWDY: Does Fusion GPS do what you just described as opposition 

MR. SIMPSON: From time to time. It's not very - it’s not a very big part 
of our business. Generally, we have - we work for corporate clients and banks 



and large law firms. And most of our work is not election-related, it has to do with 
fraud and corruption investigations and policy disputes and high-dollar litigation. 

MR. GOWDY: Were you hired by a person or entity in either 2015 or 2016 
to do research into then-candidate Donald Trump? 


MR. SIMPSON: Yes, we were. We were hired around October, 
September-October of 2015. 

MR. GOWDY: By whom? 

MR. SIMPSON: The Free Beacon has been publicly stated as the client or 
identified to the committee as the client, and I can confirm that. 

MR. GOWDY: All right. I’m going to be asking you questions even though 
there's been public reporting. I don't want anybody in the media to take any 
offense, but sometimes they're right, sometimes they're not right. So — 

MR. SIMPSON: I can agree with that. 

MR. GOWDY: So in this instance, we can all celebrate the fact that they 
were correct. You were hired by the Washington Free Beacon? 

MR. SIMPSON: That was the client, yes. 

MR. GOWDY: All right. And what were your instructions? What were 
you asked to do? 

MR. SIMPSON: I -- that's I think covered — our client relationships are 
confidential, and so I can't get into what anyone specifically told me. I think I can 
speak more broadly and say that it was an open-ended look at Donald Trump's 
business career and his litigation history and his relationships with questionable 
people, how much he was really worth, how he ran his casinos, what kind of 
performance he had in other lines of work. 

It was a very broad unfocused look, which is the way we do our business. 



Essentially, we don't usually allow clients to tell us what to look at and what not to 
look at, because we don't think that's a smart way of trying to understand a 
subject. So, generally speaking, we just do an open-ended look at everything we 
can find. 

So it starts with literature review. We obtain all the books we can on a 
subje ct an d order them all, you know, used from Amazon, and all the newspaper 
articles, all the court records, all the public records you can lay your hands on. 

And only after you've digested all that information do you start to figure out, you 
know, where to focus your inquiries. 

MR. GOWDY: Were you asked to write a report or just accumulate 

MR. SIMPSON: Again, I need to steer clear of specific communications I 
had with my clients, but I can tell you that as a business practice, generally 
speaking, we do engagements on a 30-day basis, and at the end of the 30 days 
we write a report about what we found. And if there's specific things that are 
interesting, a particular lawsuit or a dispute or a business deal or something like 
that, you know, we will write a separate treatment of that issue. 

But, generally speaking, for most of our clients, particularly in the beginning 
of an engagement, it’s a 30-day assignment, and at the end of 30 days you get a 
report. And if you think what we told you was interesting and you want more, we 
can sign up again. 

MR. GOWDY: Well, I really am trying to limit the number of times your 
lawyer has to lean over there and give you counsel, so I'm trying to stay within the 
parameters of what I think you feel like you're able to answer. 

But are you asked to write what some of our friends may refer to as a fair 




and balanced piece, or are they primarily interested in negative information? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, we've only had a very small number of political 
clients. So I can tell you, I mean, our methodology doesn't really change. 

We — my firm is -- all the principals are former journalists, so we don't come out of 
the political combat industry. We come out of the, you know, journalism industry, 
which is all about sort of sticking to the facts and not leaping to conclusions and 
not trying to, you know, come up with a hit piece on anybody. So, generally 
speaking, you know, what we get compensated for is producing reliable treatments 
of whatever the subject is. 

And I should just add, I mean, it doesn't - it doesn’t help us or our clients if 
we only look for negative information. What the clients want is all the information. 
And so, you know, someone - if you're in a campaign and the, you know, other 
side is a businessman and you're reviewing his career, it's important information 
whether he's a good businessman or bad businessman. And you don't want your 
client trying to make an issue of his business career if he's a brilliant businessman 
who knows how to make money in an honest and ethical way. 

MR. GOWDY: All right. Let me ask you about a couple words you just 
used. You just used the words "good" and "bad," which some would argue are 
inherently subjective; but you also used the word "facts," and what did you mean 
when you used the word "facts"? 

MR. SIMPSON: I mean, factual information is - a lot of what we do is 
gather facts. And sometimes facts are provable facts; sometimes facts are 
established facts; sometimes they're allegations, factual allegations. So we do all 
of the above. When you gather up lawsuit information, for example, you have two 
sides making factual allegations against each other; and what’s important is that 




you have a reliable, credible basis for your information. 

And, you know, it is a lot like journalism in that journalism is called the first 
draft of history, where essentially you’re gathering up information, and your job is 
not to determine the truth, it's to gather credible information and to present all the 
possibilities and all the reliable information you can find. 

But, you know, every day in the newspaper every story has two sides to it, 
and it’s not the reporter's job to figure out who's telling the truth and who's not or 
who’s right and who's wrong, it's to be responsible and professional in gathering 
up all of the facts and allegations and presenting them in a neutral way. So our 
method is journalistic, and our reports are written along those lines. 

MR. GOWDY: Do you draw a distinction between facts and allegations? 

MR. SIMPSON: Certainly. 

MR. GOWDY: What is that distinction? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I mean, a fact is something that's subjectively 
verifiable to all reasonable observers; and an allegation is something that hasn't 
been confirmed. 

MR. GOWDY: All right. No offense to people that do what you do for a 
living, but if it is all publicly available, why do people need to hire you? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, we live in an information society, and there's a lot of 
information out there. Some people are good at finding it and processing it, and 
others not so much, or it’s just a question of specialization. 

So you're running a business and you’re busy running your business and 
you think that the guy who's your main competitor is cheating or maybe paying a 
bribe to steal a contract from you. And that’s not your main line of work. You 
don't know how to investigate whether someone is engaged in corruption or 




whether they've got a bad business history. And so, you know, you hire someone 
who specializes in that kind of work. So we specialize in finding records and 
reading things and digesting large volumes of information. 

MR. GOWDY: If I understood your testimony correctly, you don't 
specialize in political opposition research? 

MR. SIMPSON: It's not a major line of business for us. It's, you know, 
every couple of years, 3, 4, when there's a Presidential campaign we get asked to 
do stuff. We sometimes get asked to do stuff in California initiatives and other 

Generally speaking, the market niche that we occupy is not the opposition 
research niche. I don’t think our pricing structure is conducive to getting 
opposition research business, which is -- generally doesn't pay very well. 

MR. GOWDY: Weil, given that and given the fact that it's not your niche, 
why did the Washington Free Beacon approach you about doing the research on 
candidate Trump? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, one of our, you know, specialties that I think people 
know is that we are good at business investigations, corporate investigations, and 
Mr. Trump is a big businessman. 

So I can't get into exactly sort of what was said, but - and, in fact, I don't 
think I even remember, you know, if I had that kind of information. But I think it's 
reasonable to interpret that it was because we have a background doing business 

MR. GOWDY: And how long were you employed by the Washington Free 

MR. SIMPSON: As I said, I think we started in September or October, and 




I think it wound down in April, sometime in the spring. As the Republican 
primaries came to an end, it became obvious that that work was going to end. 

MR. GOWDY: Did you rely on sources or subsources during your work for 
the Washington Free Beacon? 

MR. SIMPSON: I don't specifically remember. We may have engaged 
someone. Typically speaking, we engage subcontractors to gather documents in 
far away places. And, you know, far away in this case may be even just being 
California or Illinois or something like that. So I assume we had some 
subcontractors, for instance, but I don't specifically remember. 

MR. GOWDY: At some point, did the Washington Free Beacon stop 
paying you for the project into then-candidate Trump? Did the business 
relationship end? 

MR. SIMPSON: I remember that we stopped doing the Trump work for the 
Beacon sometime in the spring of 2016. 

MR. GOWDY: Did you pick up -- 

[Discussion off the record.] 

MR. SIMPSON: He just reminded me, I don't know the exact date of when 
the payments, the last payment was. And so I can tell you, generally speaking, 
that I - you know, in the division of labor in my company, I don't handle the 
invoicing and banking stuff. So I can tell you more substantively when it stopped, 
but I don't — you know, the records are not something that I'm immersed in. 

MR. GOWDY: Well, let's go with that. When did the work stop? 

MR. SIMPSON: I think it was April or May. 

MR. GOWDY: All right. And were you retained by a subsequent client to 
pick up on the work that you had begun? 




MR. SIMPSON: It was the same subject. And obviously, the first work 
was informed by the new project. But, you know, it wasn’t like a direct line 
continuum. It was similar work, but we obviously by then knew quite a bit about 
Mr. Trump and his business career and his associations and all that. 

MR. GOWDY: Well, that leads me to ask were you approached by a 
subsequent client or did you market yourself to other people as having started this 
research and being willing to continue it? 

MR. SIMPSON: I think that covers a client confidentiality area, but I 
can --1 also can tell you I don’t specifically remember how it -- what the genesis of 
it was. 

MR. GOWDY: You've got to help me here. Being approached by the first 
client you testified at some length about, and now I’m asking about how you were 
approached by the second client. So why would the second client be governed 
by confidentiality concerns, but the first one not? 

MR. SIMPSON: It would - it would depend on the nature of the 
communication. But I'm not the only person in my company, so I think the 
answer - I don't think I have the answer to your question, in any event. 

MR. GOWDY: Did you have a second client interested in opposition 
research on candidate Trump? 

MR. SIMPSON: Yes, sir. 

MR. GOWDY: Who was that second client? 

MR. SIMPSON: I think the records indicated that it’s Perkins Coie, and I 
can confirm that. 

MR. GOWDY: And who is Perkins Coie? 

MR. SIMPSON: It's a law firm. I think they’re headquartered in Seattle, 




and they're a big law firm. 

MR. GOWDY: Had you ever worked for them in the past? 

MR. SIMPSON: I don't think I can get into the -- essentially, I haven't been 
released by any clients to get into my work for them. 

Generally speaking, we sign confidentiality agreements with all of our 
clients, which is an essential part of the kind of work we do. And I haven't been 
released or directed to get into whether I worked for these clients before or what 
kind of things I did for them. 

MR. GOWDY: So I assume you did not sign a confidentiality agreement 
with the Washington Free Beacon? 

MR. SIMPSON: I actually don't know. We - 

MR. GOWDY: I'll direct this to your lawyer. This is what I'm trying to 
avoid, picking and choosing which questions you want to answer. 

MR. LEVY: Yes. Just to be clear, I think what he was trying to do in 
response to your questions on the Washington Free Beacon was talk as a general 
matter why the company would be hired. I thought he was careful to say he 
wasn't getting into the actual conversations or communications with the Free 

So, in that sense, he is trying to be consistent. He has not been released 
by either client to talk about confidential client communications, but he will tell you 
about the work and he's here all night for you. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

MR. SIMPSON: I mean, my answer for the second client would be the 
same as my answer for the first, which is that I worked for the Wall Street Journal 
for about 15 years, and I specialized in complex financial investigations, political 



corruption, that sort of thing, and it's what I'm known for. 

And so, you know, I can't tell you what other people were thinking about 
why they hired me, but, generally speaking, people hired me because that's what 
they know I do. 

MR. GOWDY: Well, let's try to approach it this way: When you were 
hired by Perkins Coie, did you consider them to be the client? 


MR. GOWDY: Do you recall who, if anyone, you specifically talked to at 
Perkins Coie? 

MR. SIMPSON: I think that would be getting into client communication. 

MR. GOWDY: I'm going to have to look at my colleague from California. 
For months and months I have been hearing about all the privileges that we do not 
recognize in congressional investigations, and this is a brand new one to me. So 
is this a privilege that we recognize? 

MR. SCHIFF: I think the answer is we should get through the interview, 
and then we can decide whether there's a privilege v/e are going to recognize or 
whether we're going to use compulsory process. I don't know the answer, but I 
suggest we try to get as much information as we can voluntarily and then figure 
out whether we need any more than that. 

MR. ROONEY: Well, this did come up, as you know, with another witness 
where I was in chair and this exact thing came up. And I asked the witness to 
answer one of your questions, because of this congressional committee not 
recognizing the privilege of attorney-client. And they answered the question. So 
we didn’t wait until it was over. 

MR. SCHIFF: But we had a couple interviews, one in which we asked 




about other clients, and we were not allowed to get the answers because there 
was an objection on your side that it was beyond the scope or we shouldn’t just be 
asking about other clients that weren't necessarily related. So we’ve had kind of 
rulings that have gone back. I don't know whether -- 

MR. ROONEY: That's fine, but we're just trying to get the information here. 
And if I was willing to make Carter Page answer a question for Mr. Swalwell that 
he did not want to answer and begged us not to answer, and I made him answer it, 
and he's trying to get some background information on his client, it's kind of like, 
you know, it's not a two-way street, and that's not really fair. 

MR. SCHIFF: Carter Page was subpoenaed to come in, because he 
wouldn't cooperate otherwise. I'm not objecting to the question. I just don’t know 
the answer. And so I'm not objecting to the question, though. And my only 
suggestion was we try to get all the answers we can get answered, and then we 
can figure out, okay, we need to go back and say we need to get answers to these 
questions or maybe we get what we need. That was just my suggestion. But 
I'm - 

MR. GOWDY: All right. We'll keep trying. 

MR. CONAWAY: Just to be clear, you're invoking attorney-client privilege 
with all these folks or just client-client privilege or just work product? I mean, what 
is it? 

MR. LEVY: It’s a voluntary interview, and so he's just respectfully declining 
to answer this question. 

MR. CONAWAY: On what basis? 

MR. LEVY: He's got a confidentiality obligation to the client. The client 
has not waived that confidentiality for him to get into his communications with the 




client. He can, however, talk to you as long as you'd like about the work that he 
did, his communications with Mr. Steele, the work on the dossier. He just can't 
talk about communications with the client, because they are confidential, and 
those confidentiality considerations have not been waived. 

MR. CONAWAY: I'm going to figure out a way to officially put the objection 
on the record so that when we revisit how we enforce the House investigatory 
prerogatives, we'll know what to do. So what do we do? 

I think what we should do is, if you can't answer the 

question, raise the objection. 

MR. CONAWAY: He won’t answer the question. 

He won’t answer the question. So there’s been an 

objection. And I'll just say that the witness is reminded that he may refuse to 
answer a question only to preserve a testimonial privilege. Neither the U.S. 
House of Representatives nor the committee recognizes any purported 
nondisclosure privileges associated with common law, including attorney-client 
privilege, attorney work product protections; and neither the U.S. House of 
Representatives or the committee recognizes any purported contractual privileges, 
including those supposedly deriving from nondisclosure agreements. 

So we'll just raise that’s the objection that's on the record. We'll move on 
to the next question. 

MR. LEW: And just to ask clarification just so we're making sure we're all 
proceeding under the same rules, are those rules for staff depositions or for 
voluntary interviews, which is what this is? 

Well, we consider this to be a — this is a voluntary staff 

deposition. You're here on a voluntary basis. 




MR. LEVY: Okay. The letter that we had talked about last week said 
voluntary interview, which we thought was covered by a different set of rules. 

We're happy to follow whatever rules govern. Of course, we're going to follow the 
rules, but just want clarity on what they are. 

MR. SCHIEF: The only thing I will say is we had this issue come up with a 
witness who was subpoenaed, and we read the advisement that those privileges 
are not - they are not recognized. 

So the only thing I would commend to you is you can assert whatever 
privilege you want today, but if the majority decides that they need more 
information, they'll have to bring you back under subpoena. Then those privileges 
won't be recognized. 

So I think the more information you're able to give today, the greater 
likelihood we won't have to bring you back under a subpoena. 

MR. LEVY: Understood. And that's our aim today is to cooperate as 
much as we can with the entire committee today. I appreciate that. And while 
we've not yet seen a copy of the letter, we understand that the letter was going to 
withdraw the subpoena. We have it now. Okay. And let me just -- no, this is 
not the letter. 

MR. CONAWAY: No, it's one signed by me. 

MR. MUSE: The subpoena has been withdrawn. We have that. 

MR. LEVY: Because I believe in the other situation the members are 
referencing, the subpoena was not withdrawn. 

MR. SCHIFF: Correct. I mean, you're not under subpoena at this 
moment, but my point is the more forthcoming you can be, the greater the 
likelihood you won't have to be brought back under subpoena. 




MR. LEVY: Understood. 

MR. GOWDY: Mr. Simpson, were you aware that Perkins Coie was 
retained by the DNC? 

MR. SIMPSON: I'm aware. I was aware of that and have been for years 
that they have -- they were one of the main lawyers for the Democratic party, yes. 

I don't have any specific awareness -- 

MR. GOWDY: That wasn’t my precise question. With respect to this fact 
pattern, with respect to your firm being retained, were you aware that Perkins Coie 
was working on behalf of the DNC? 

MR. SIMPSON: Yes. I mean, I know that they are - the DNC is a client 
of Perkins Coie. I don't - I didn't see it -- nobody gave me a document or 
informed me specifically of that. 

MR. GOWDY: Did you think the law firm was just doing it on their own? 

MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. 

MR. GOWDY: Did you think the law firm was just doing it on their own? 

MR. SIMPSON: Doing what? Doing -- 

MR. GOWDY: Opposition research into candidate Trump. 


MR. GOWDY: Paying you to do opposition research into candidate Trump, 
did you think Perkins Coie was doing that on their own? 

MR. SIMPSON: No, sir. What I'm trying to explain is that I have been in 
Washington for several decades, and I spent a lot of time on Capitol Hill and it was 
well-known to me that Perkins Coie represented the DNC. 

MR. GOWDY: Is that the only way that you knew that they were doing 
work on behalf of the DNC when they retained you in this specific fact pattern? 




MR. SIMPSON: I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to ask me, but 
jf it's — |‘m not going to get into what discussions I had with my client about who 
their clients were. 

MR. GOWDY: I’m looking at a release from Perkins Coie that is giving me 
more information than you are. Have you seen the release where they released 
you from some of your confidentiality obligations? 

MR. SIMPSON: I would like to see a copy of that, if you don't mind. 

MR. GOWDY: Do your lawyers not have it? 

MR. SIMPSON: It's been a busy time. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry if I'm not 
giving you a clear answer. I knew it was the DNC that we were working for. 

MR. GOWDY: Okay. How did you know it was the DNC? 

MR. SIMPSON: I honestly don't - I couldn't tell you if someone specifically 
said, this is for the DNC. 

MR. GOWDY: Well, how else would you know it was for the DNC? Did 
you read it? 

MR. SIMPSON: As I'm trying to explain, I know - I've been in Washington 
for a long time, and Perkins Coie represents the DNC. 

MR. GOWDY: So you knew it by habit and custom? 

MR. SIMPSON: I'm-yes. 

MR. GOWDY: By habit and custom? 

MR. SIMPSON: I feel like I'm in a difficult position, because I have not 
been released from my client - by my client to talk about anything that we talked 
about, but I'm trying to give you the answer that I think you want, which is I was 
definitely aware that Perkins Coie represented the DNC and that they were the 
client in this matter. 




MR. GOWDY: Right. And I’m asking you how you knew that? 

MR. SIMPSON: And I'm --1 don't know what to tell you other than that I 
was generally aware that Perkins Coie represented the DNC. 

MR. GOWDY: Okay. So how did your work for Perkins Coie begin? 

MR. SIMPSON: My recollection is we began to review what we had 
learned over the previous months and talk about what we would do, you know, 
now that we would have resources to pursue this - some of these matters further. 
So it's - when you get into that point of a piece of research, you begin to develop 
lines of inquiry and things that you think might be important, things you want 
to -- that other people are - you know other people are interested in. 

So we began to develop more specific lines of inquiry. So they would 
be - so the things that we started looking at specifically were a lot of Mr. Trump's 
overseas business deals, his history with regard to tax disputes. We were very 
interested in things like his clothing line and where his -- you know, he --1 can't 
remember exactly when this came up, but we gradually figured out that he -- while 
he was running on a platform of economic nationalism that he’s outsourced his 
clothing line to developing countries. So we were interested in the labor practices 
around his factories. 

You know, we had gradually accumulated more and more things about his 
bankruptcies. And we had gotten a better sense of who his business partners 
were. So those were issues. So we sort of -- when we reached an agreement 
about, you know, funding and we thought we would have funding to do a bunch of 
things, we began to look for people who could help us pursue some of these 
things. And I guess that's a general description of what we began to do. 

MR. GOWDY: Were the lines of inquiry dictated by the client or suggested 




by the client, or did you come up with those on your own? 

MR. SIMPSON: Generally speaking, we seek and usually receive a lot of 
leeway to develop our lines of inquiry. And typically, when you're already familiar 
with the subject and the client isn't -- and that was obviously the case 
here -- you're running the investigation. 

So we like to get -- we like to have a lot of freedom to pursue everything or 
the things that we think are important, because we have found from experience 
that clients, you know, generally they have something that they maybe are trying 
to do or have some preconceived notions about things, and we find that to be 
unhelpful. So I'd say, in general, we were the architects of the research and we 
made most of the decisions about what to look for and where to look. 

MR. GOWDY: What was the budget for you to enjoy the freedom to 
pursue the lines of inquiry you wanted to pursue? 

MR. SIMPSON: I don't remember being given a specific expenses budget. 
I think the fees were $50,000 a month. 

MR. GOWDY: Flat fee, $50,000 a month? 

MR. SIMPSON: That's right. 

MR. GOWDY: Plus expenses, minus expenses? 

MR. SIMPSON: Plus expenses, yes. 

MR. GOWDY: How did you come to know Christopher Steele? 

MR. SIMPSON: I met Chris in - I left the Wall Street Journal in 2009. 

And in my last few years at the Wall Street Journal, I had been living in Belgium, in 
Brussels, and had developed a line of reporting around the former Soviet Union 
and crime and corruption in the former Soviet Union. 

And I had written a series of articles about Vladimir Putin and a lot of 




corruption and organized crime activities sort of making its way westward from 
Russia, and eventually started doing a lot of work on Ukraine, corruption in 
Ukraine and gas trade in Ukraine, and connections to the Russian mafia. That’s 
when I first came across Paul Manafort. 

And in any event, when I decided to leave the Journal in 2009,1 had 
developed a lot of relationships with people who worked on organized crime 
issues, Russian organized crime issues, and had become known as someone who 
specialized in that. And a mutual acquaintance of ours suggested that - Chris 
had just left the British Government, and a mutual acquaintance of ours suggested 
that we might be able to work together or at least, you know, had a lot in common. 

And so I don’t remember the details, but we were introduced. We met. 

And, you know, it turned out we did, in fact, have a, you know, kind of obsessive 
interest in a pretty obscure -- what was then a pretty obscure subject. And, you 
know, this is 2009, so we've just come off of 8 years of focus in the national 
security world on al-Qa'ida, Islamic terrorism. And I had spent several years 
specializing on that. 

And so there were very few people at that time who were interested in this 
issue, and so the small number of us tended to meet at conferences and that sort 
of thing. So over time, Chris and I would have coffee together when I was in 
London or he was in Washington, and we would talk about various Russian . 
corruption issues, organized crime, oligarchs. 

MR. GOWDY: How did he come to work on this project? 

MR. SIMPSON: As I said, I mean, we’ve done other things together. And 
over — well, at the very beginning of this project, one of the very first things that I 
focused on was Donald Trump's relationship with a convicted racketeer named 




Felix Sater, and who was alleged to have an organized crime, Russian organized 
crime background. 

And over the course of the first phase of this or the first project, we 
developed a lot of additional information suggesting that the company that Donald 
Trump had been associated with and Felix Sater, Bayrock, was engaged in illicit 
financial business activity and had organized crime connections. 

We also had sort of more broadly learned that Mr. Trump had long time 
associations with Italian organized crime figures. And as we pieced together the 
early years of his biography, it seemed as if during the early part of his career he 
had connections to a lot of Italian mafia figures, and then gradually during the 
nineties became associated with Russian mafia figures. 

And so all of that had developed by the spring of 2016 to the point where it 
was not a speculative piece of research; it was pretty well-established. And Mr. 
Trump had, quite memorably, attempted to downplay his relationship with 
Mr. Sater in ways that I found, frankly, suspicious and not credible. Saying he 
wouldn't recognize him on the street, but there were pictures of them together. 

And the other people around Bayrock were also from the former Soviet 
Union and also had associations suggestive of possible organized crime ties. One 
of them is a guy named Tevfik Arif, A-r-i-f, who it turned out his real name was Tofik 
Arifov, and that he was an alleged organized crime figure from the central Asia. 

So there was all that. And then, you know, we also increasingly saw that Mr. 

Trump's business career had evolved over the prior decade into a lot of projects in 
overseas places, particularly in the former Soviet Union, that were very opaque, and 
that he had made a number of trips to Russia, but said he'd never 




done a business deal there. And I found that mysterious. 

And so I had the perfect person to go see if they could figure out what was 
going on there. And so that's how I decided to ask Chris if he could look into it for 
me. And I had — the initial engagement with Chris was much like we do. I didn't 
hire him for a long-term engagement. I said, take 30 days, 20 or 30 days, and 
we’ll pay you a set amount of money, and see if you can figure out what Trump’s 
been up to over there, because he's gone over a bunch of times, he said some 
weird things about Putin, but doesn't seem to have gotten any business deals. 

So that was the initial assignment. It was pretty open-ended. I didn't say, 
find me this or get me that. I just said, see if you can figure out what's going on 
over there. 

MR. GOWDY: And how much did you pay Chris Steeie? 

MR. SIMPSON: I think what we've told the committee from the bank 
records is that it was ultimately $160,000. That sounds right to me. 1 think 
probably the initial engagement was for 20 or 30 thousand dollars. There's, you 
know, currency differences between pounds and dollars, so I don't remember how 
it was denominated or exactly how it was priced. 

MR. GOWDY: Now, help me understand this. Would that payment for 
Steele have been expensed to the law firm, or would Fusion have paid that out of 
its own money that it received from the law firm? 

MR. SIMPSON: I believe, at least if things were running the way I hope 
they ran, it was expensed to the law firm. 

MR. GOWDY: So Perkins Coie paid Chris Steele? 

MR. SIMPSON: I think it was — I mean, I think we billed them for it. 

MR. GOWDY: Okay. | _ IT T".. 1 




MR. SIMPSON: I was generally aware of Chris' history. You know, 
because of the strictures on government work, when you’re involved in intelligence 

and talking about it, we never discussed in any great detail what kind of work he 
did. And at least publicly it was ~ even though he had been exposed in a prior 
leak by a former government agent over there, so it was, in fact, in the public 
domain that he had worked for British Intelligence, he generally didn't talk about 
his government work other than the way you would if you formerly worked for the 
government. I used to work for the government, you know. Sometimes he would 
say foreign office. But we had mutual friends who were familiar with his 

MR. SCHIFF: Just to clarify, Mr. Gowdy, you're not confirming or denying, 
you're just asking? 

MR. GOWDY: I’m just asking what he said. 

MR. GOWDY: Did you ever have any conversations with the FBI? 

MR. SIMPSON: Not about this, no. 

MR. GOWDY: Did Chris Steele go to Russia as part of this project? 

MR. SIMPSON: No, sir. 

MR. GOWDY: How do you know that? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, that’s what he told me. I mean, assuming - unless 
it was a covert thing that he was keeping from his client, he would have billed me 
for it. 




MR. GOWDY: How was he able to accumulate information in Russia if he 
didn't go? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, so to be clear, he really would not be safe if he went 
to Russia. He’s been exposed as a former undercover British Intelligence officer 
who worked in Moscow. So it wouldn't be wise for him to go to Russia. 

I Five minutes, Mr. Gowdy. 

MR. SIMPSON: So, to answer your question, you know, generally 
speaking, his line of work is very different from mine and that was why I hired him. 
So I do mostly public records and we don't do much interviewing. But I'm familiar 
with how his work is done. And generally, you have a network of sources who 
live in or came from the place that you're interested in. So, you know, generally 
speaking, you would have -- you would run a network of subsources or 
subcontractors who travel around and gather information for you. And so without 
getting into who his sources are, I can say generally, he hires people who can 
travel and talk to people and find out what’s going on. 

MR. GOWDY: Were you able to vet or corroborate or contradict any of the 
sources or subsources? 

MR. SIMPSON: We did get into assessing the credibility of the sources 
and whether they were in a position to know the things that they were saying. I 
didn't ask for the specific identities of specific people. Some people, I think I know 
who they are for other reasons. But that's about as much as I can say. 

We did a lot of -- when the first reports came in, we did a lot of discussing of 
whether this was credible information. And obviously, evaluating human 
intelligence is not the same thing as looking at documents. And so it's a much 
trickier process and the thresholds are different. And so what you’re really trying 




to do, which is kind of like interviewing in journalism, is figure out whether there's 
reason to think that what's being said is credible. And so we did a lot of that. 

MR. GOWDY: Can you give me an example of something that he 
produced to you that you found to be not credible? 

MR. SIMPSON: No, I don't think anything comes to mind. I mean, I must 
say my original reaction to all this was to suspend judgment. I was not 
particularly interested in some of the things that he found that are among the most 
controversial, because I didn't think they were useful or important for what I was 
trying to do. And so i to this day can’t tell you whether a lot of those things - I just 
don't have a strong view as to whether they are false or true, per se. 

But what we did do is look at names and places and people and whether 
they matched up with information we could get elsewhere. And all of that, as far 
as it went, checked out. I haven't seen anything that has contradicted anything in 
the memos to date, at least not that I can think of. 

MR. GOWDY: Well, that's a very different standard. You haven't seen 
anything to contradict it, whereas my question was, what did you have that 
corroborates it? How were you able to assess the accuracy of the information, 
the underlying information he provided you? 

MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry, I thought you asked me whether there was 
anything in there that I found to be wrong. 

MR. GOWDY: I did. 

MR. SIMPSON: I haven’t found anything to be wrong. If you'd like me to 
get into more of the corroboration, I can do that. 

MR. GOWDY: Yes, I’m sure we will get into that. My other question is, 
was there anything not included in your report that you concluded was wrong? In 




other words, I think my primary question was, is there anything that Steele, his 
sources or subsources told you that you didn't include because you immediately 
found it to be incredible? And I think your answer was no. 

MR. SIMPSON: That is correct. My answer to that is no. 

MR. GOWDY: And how did you assess the reliability of that information, 
given the fact that you did not talk to the sources or subsources? 

MR. SIMPSON: So it's obviously a challenging thing to assess human 
intelligence, field interviews, and it is different from looking at a lawsuit. But there 
are similarities to the interview process in journalism, where there are elements of 
people, what people say that you can check. 

And so, you know, for example, in one report they described how the 
Kremlin's election operation was being run by Sergei Ivanov, who is the head of the 
presidential administration, and, you know, gave a number of details about that. 

That was news to me. I thought if you were going to run an intelligence operation 
against the United States, you'd use the SVR. They'd be in charge. 

As I dug into some of the more obscure academic work on how the Kremlin 
operates by some of the more distinguished scholars of the subject, I found that 
Ivanov is, in fact, or was at the time, in fact, the head of a sort of internal kind of 
White House plumber's operation for the Kremlin and that he seemed to have the 
kind of duties that were being described in this memo. 

So either this person was familiar with some fairly obscure research or they 
knew what they were talking about. So that's the kind of work you can do. You 

can do a lot of that work. And that’s why I think I can give a much more definitive 
answer on whether anything's been disproved, because, generally speaking, when 
you're evaluating things, you’re looking for things that someone clearly made up. 




And I couldn't find anything that was clearly made up. They had accurate names 
and events that, while not totally secret, were pretty obscure that turned out to be 
on target. 

We -- you know, they identified -- one memo identified a Russian guy who 
worked for an NGO called Rossotrudnichestvo, which is -- you know, I didn’t know 
it at the time, but I was able to learn from looking at it that the FBI considers that to 
be a front for the SVR. So, you know, either the people were extremely 
knowledgeable about a lot of obscure intelligence stuff or, you know, they -- what 
they're saying had some credibility. 

I'll add that, you know, again, like journalism, British Intelligence 
methodology is a kind of strict recitation of what sources are saying. And so, you 
know, I didn’t do this -- I've never done this much work with Chris, but in the 
process of doing this work, you know, I learned a good bit about British 
Intelligence methodology. 

And in a way, it is like journalism, because they are somewhat rigid in 
reporting what sources in the field are saying, and, you know, they - they don't do 
a lot of the -- this is what this guy said, but we don’t think it’s true or we believe this 
or we believe that he might have gotten the data wrong. They just - it's a kind of 
a here's what they said type report. • 

So, again, what we were trying to do is evaluate whether the information 
was credible. Chris is the spy. I'm the ex-journalist, so I defer a lot to his 
professionalism. From everything I know now and knew at the time, he's an 
extremely well-regarded professional. And I had no reason --1 have no reason 
today to change my opinion. 

MR. STEWART: Time is up. 




MR. SCHIFF: Mr. Simpson, you described understanding Perkins Coie's 
client was likely to be DNC because of the long relationship between the two. Did 
you know who Free Beacon was doing the work for? 

MR. SIMPSON: I don’t know that they were doing the work for anyone. I 
mean, it's a foundation. So it's a freestanding entity, to my knowledge. 

MR. SCHIFF: Well, without getting into conversations, client 
conversations, can you tell us what you know about the Free Beacon and why 
they were likely employing you to do this kind of work? 

MR. SIMPSON: I think they were from the wing of the Republican party 
that was concerned about a takeover of the party by the Donald Trump wing. And 
as you probably know, there was a pretty brutal struggle during the primaries 
between the more traditional conservatives and the more sort of populist, 
nationalist, protectionist conservatives. So I think they were from the free markets 
arm of the party. 

MR. SCHIFF: And do you know whether it was their intention to --1 mean, 

I only know of them as a very conservative publication. Do you know whether it 
was their intention to publish the information that you provided them or to provide it 
to one of the GOP opponents of Mr. Trump, or more than one of the opponents? 

MR. SIMPSON: I can tell you that the information that we gathered 
appeared in print in various places, not just the Beacon. And I don't have any 
specific knowledge of it being provided to a particular candidate, or at least not in 
any kind of--1 don't think that they were a proxy for a specific candidate, not to my 

MR. SCHIFF: So you saw your work product, what you could recognize as 
your work product appear in various publications, not just theirs? 




MR. SIMPSON: Right. Well, so the way that we work is that we’re all 
ex-journalists. And, you know, part of the business idea behind the company is 
- that, you know, research is expensive, and if we gather it and have it and 
journalists call us looking for things, you know, we will work with them. And so we 
would get calls from journalists during the primaries saying, what do you know 
about Trump this or Trump that? And we would provide them with that 

So I want to be clear that, you know, it appeared in other places because 
other journalists called us and asked us about it. And we would ask - well, I’m 
sorry. I’m not going to say - in general, let me just say in general, if a reporter 
calls you and says, I need information on such-and-such, and it’s of significance to 
your client, you know, you would call the client and say, do you have any objection 
to, you know, you know, helping this reporter? So in both of these instances, you 
know, I think those rules would generally apply. 

MR. SCHIFF: Well, in that circumstance, though, the reporter calling you 
would know that the Free Beacon -- that the publication you're working for was a 
client, right? 

MR. SIMPSON: Not necessarily. 

MR. SCHIFF: So it might be part of your practice that if you're doing work 
on behalf of a client, it could be I guess one of two situations: The client could 
either authorize you to talk to reporters on their behalf; or if a reporter called you 
and asked you for information, you could check with your client as to whether you 
have their permission to share the information? 

MR. SIMPSON: That is correct. And, I mean, generally speaking, you 
know, we get a fair number of inquiries about, you know, lots of different subjects. 




MR. SCHIFF: You wouldn't be sharing information without your client's 
approval one way or the other? 

MR. SIMPSON: That's right. 

MR. SCHIFF: And can you tell us what publications your work appeared 
within, in terms of the work that you were doing for the Free Beacon? 

MR. SIMPSON: It would ~1 would struggle to come up with a list right 
now. I'm -- that was, you know, a good while ago. I think we probably had 
inquiries from, you know, all the networks and most of the major papers. And I 
don't have a specific recollection of who published what. 

MR. SCHIFF: Did your work product appear on Fox News? 





[3:11 p.m.] 

MR. SIMPSON: I honestly don't know. 

MR. SCHIFF: And how about Breitbart? 

MR. SIMPSON: Again, I'm sorry to say, I just - I don't have any 


MR. SCHIFF: Now, you don’t have a recollection because there might be 
other people at the firm who would be providing that information, or it would be you 
but you just don't recall? 

MR. SIMPSON: It would be a little of both. I mean, those aren't my go-to 
news sources, so I don't really spend a lot of time -- you know, I don't read 
Breitbart every day, and I certainly don't watch FOX every day. 

So, you know, if it ran in The New York Times and it was my work, I'd 
probably remember it, but not if-- and so -- but it's also true that, you know, we 
have 12 or so people in the company, and depending on the matter, someone else 
might have handled it. 

MR. SCHIFF: So this might also be a situation where your client, the Free 
Beacon, might be providing information to various news sources without 
discussing it with you? 


MR. SCHIFF: I see. So in that case, it could appear on FOX even though 
you didn't have a conversation with FOX yourself? 

MR. SIMPSON: That's right. 

MR. SCHIFF: During the time that you'were doing work for Free Beacon, 
you had mentioned some work in the first phase. You had discovered business 
relationships with Felix Sater and Bayrock. By first phase, do you mean while you 




were doing work for Free Beacon? 

MR. SIMPSON: It was one of the first things we found. And I should 
emphasize, it was, you know - originally I saw it in the New York Times article, so 
it wasn’t a great investigative discovery. But then when I read into it and I found 
depositions in which he was, you know, more than evasive about the relationship, 
that's when I got really interested. 

MR. SCHIFF: So during the period of time you were working for Free 
Beacon, you came across some of the first information about candidate Trump's 
business ties in Russia, including those with Felix Sater. 

MR. SIMPSON: Yep, that's correct. And lots of other issues came up 
during the primaries that raised concerns in my mind about whether there might be 
connections -- Donald Trump might have unexplained connections to Russia or 
people involved in that part of the world. 

i mean, among other things, eventually Paul Manafortwas appointed to his 
campaign as the - first the convention manager and then the chairman -- or the 
campaign manager. And I knew a lot about Paul Manafort from my career at The 
Wall Street Journal. I had written a number of stories about his involvement with 
Oleg Deripaska and the pro-Russia party in Ukraine and another oligarch named 
Firtash. And I had even written a story about whether he should have registered 
as a foreign agent. 

All that had occurred years earlier. So when he suddenly surfaced, I was, 
you know, struck by that. 

MR. SCHIFF: Now, he surfaced though after you were no longer working 
for Free Beacon, right? 

MR. SIMPSON: I think he originally — I don't remember the dates, but I 




think it was somewhere in the transition period. 

MR. SCHIFF: I'm sorry, the - oh, your transition period. 

MR. SIMPSON: Yeah, between -- 

MR. SCHIFF: Well, the convention was in July, I believe. 

MR. SIMPSON: The convention was in July, but Paul Manafort surfaced 
with the Trump campaign in like March.- 

MR. SCHIFF: So if you would go through with us some of the 
Russia-related things that concerned you that you learned in that first phase while 
you were doing work for the Free Beacon, as best you can recall. 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, the Bayrock, the funding of Bayrock was, I think, 
much of what we initially were concerned about and focused on. The company 
seemed to have some sort of funding source from either Russia or the former 
Soviet Union that was opaque. So we spent a lot of time looking at the people 
around that and their backgrounds and why Mr. Trump would be in business with 
them. So that was one of the major issues. 

Another one that I think surfaced in probably the early winter was the 
amazing number of people from the former Soviet Union who had purchased 
properties from Mr. Trump, including Dmitry Rybolovlev, who purchased a derelict 
estate at an extreme markup in Florida. And a number of other people bought 
into his properties. 

We also looked at his trips and marketing activities in Russia. And I think 
all of that came up, you know, during the first phase of the project. 

MR. SCHIFF: You mentioned that you'd done a lot of work as a journalist 
in terms of Russian organized crime, financial crimes, organized crime more 
generally. What can you tell us about how the Russians launder their money and 




whether that was an issue of concern during the first phase of your work for Free 

MR. SIMPSON: I guess the general thing I would say is that, you know, 
the Russians are far more sophisticated in their criminal organized crime activities 
than the Italians, and they're a lot more global. They understand finance a lot 
better. And so they tend to use quite elaborate methods to move money. 

You know, obviously, the offshore system has grown in sophistication in the 
last decade or so, too, so they've taken advantage of that. Things that I had 
wrote about involved laundering money through security straits, laundering money 
through fake arbitrations in court, laundering money through commodities deals. 

I mean, if you can think of a way to launder money, the Russians are pretty 
good at it. But they specifically understand financial markets. So I think I can tell 
you all of that. 

I can tell you also that the Russians are much more integrated in the way 
they operate with the political — the sort of legitimate business structures. So you 
don't find too many Italian mafia guys who are major shareholders in big media 
companies, but you definitely can find Russian mafia guys who are big 
shareholders in international media companies. 

So the only way that - well, the thing that comes to mind, of course, is the 
real estate deals. And, you know, it did come to our attention during this, you 
know, first round or this first part of the project that there were a lot of real estate 
deals where you couldn't really tell who was buying the property. And sometimes 
properties would be bought and sold, and they would be bought for one price and 
sold for a loss shortly thereafter, and it didn't really make sense to us. 

And we had done a lot of work for previous investigations on people buying 




condos in order to get visas under the EB-5 program. So we were very familiar 
with a pattern of corruption and illicit finance related to purchasing of condos. 

MR. SCHIFF: Did you find evidence of that with respect to Mr. Trump? 

MR. SIMPSON: I think a lot of what we found is subsequently - there 
have been similar articles published. "Evidence," I think, is a strong word. I think 
we saw patterns of buying and selling that we thought were suggestive of money 

I think what I was saying to Mr. Gowdy about sort of, you know, because we 
are not law enforcement, we don’t have compulsory power, and we also don't 
have, you know -- we’re not lawyers, or prosecutors, or even special -- even secret 

Generally, we find patterns of things, and then if it seems like it’s potentially 
a law enforcement matter then we would turn it over to law enforcement. Or, you 
know, if it's enough to write a story, we would give it to a journalist. 

MR. SCHIFF: And, in this case, what facts came to your attention that 
concerned you that the buying and selling of properties - the buying and selling of 
Trump properties might indicate money laundering? 

MR. SIMPSON: There was -- well, for one thing, there was various 
criminals were buying the properties. So there was a gangster -- a Russian 
gangster living in Trump Tower. 

MR. SCHIFF: Who was that? 

MR. SIMPSON: His gangster name is Taiwanchik. I couldn't spell 
his actual name. But, you know, I mean, these are the kind of things that prompted 
us to hire Mr. Steele. We had a gangster named Taiwanchik living in Trump Tower 
who had been under - I’m sorry, he was -1 think he was running 




a -- his associates were living in Trump Tower, and he was running a high-stakes 
gambling ring out of Trump Tower, while he himself was a fugitive for having 
rigged the skating competition at the Salt Lake Olympics and a bunch of other 
sporting events engaged in rigging. 

And when Mr. Trump went to the Miss Universe pageant in 2013, 

Taiwanchik was there in the VIP section with Mr. Trump and lots of other Kremlin 
biggies. So that kind of thing raised questions with us. 

Generally speaking, the patterns of activity that we thought might be 
suggestive of money laundering were, you know, fast turnover deals and deals 
where there seemed to have been efforts to disguise the identity of the buyer. 

MR. SCHIFF; And during what time period did you see indications of fast 
turnover transactions or transactions made in the name of people who were not 
the actual purchasers? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I mean, there were sort of periods - what we saw 
was that beginning in the early 2000s, when he began to do business with Bayrock 
and to do some of these other deals, that these were the problematic deals that he 
entered into. So it was essentially the previous decade of business deals, 2005 

MR. SCHIFF: And up until what point? Do you recall? Or continuing to 
the present? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I mean, some of the things that we have — that we 
looked at that we thought were very concerning are existing investments in 
projects, and specifically a project in Panama, the one in Toronto. Those both got 
a lot of fraud associated with them, a lot of fraud allegations, a lot of activity that I 
would say smacks of fraud, and a lot of Russian mafia figures listed as buyers who 




may or may not have actually put money into it. 

And so there's a couple of — so a couple of the big condo tower deals 
offshore, outside the United States, I think both of those are in bankruptcy now, 

Mr. Trump is no longer associated with them. 

The other one that is -- was concerning to us was - is the golf courses in 

Scotland and Ireland. 

MR. SCHIFF: And did you see Russian money involved with those as 


MR. SIMPSON: Well, we had -- you know, we saw what Eric Trump said 
about Russian money being available for his golf -- for the golf course projects, 
making remarks about having unlimited sums available. And, you know, because 
Mr. Trump's companies are generally not publicly traded and don't do a lot of 
public disclosure, we can only look -- have a limited look into the financing of those 

But because the Irish courses and the Scottish courses are under U.K., you 
know, Anglo corporate law, they have -- they file financial statements. So we 
were able to get the financial statements. And they don’t, on their face, show 
Russian involvement, but what they do show is enormous amounts of capital 
flowing into these projects from unknown sources and - or at least on paper it 
says it's from The Trump Organization, but it's hundreds of millions of dollars. 

And these golf course are just, you know, they're sinks. They don't actually make 
any money. 

So, you know, if you're familiar with Donald Trump's finances and the 
litigation over whether he's really a billionaire, you know, there's good reason to 
believe he doesn't have enough money to do this and that he would have had to 




have outside financial support for these things. 

Again, you know, because of what I do, it's sort of in this middle area where 
we mostly are working off public records. A lot of what I do is analyze whether 
things make sense and whether they can be explained. And that didn’t make 
sense to me, doesn't make sense to me to this day. 

MR. SCHIFF: Now, you mentioned that unlike the Italian organized crime, 
the Russian organized crime is more integrated into Russian Government, 

Russian corporate life. 

MR. SIMPSON: American Government, American corporate life. 

MR. SCHIFF: American Government, American corporate life. If the 
Russians were laundering money through Trump golf courses orTrump condos, 
would the Russian Government be aware of this? Would they be either knowing 
or active participants potentially in this? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, so what is well known and well established in 
criminology now is that the Russian mafia is essentially under the dominion of the 
Russian Government and Russian Intelligence Services. And many of the 
oligarchs are also mafia figures. 

And the oligarchs, during this period of consolidation of power by Vladimir 
Putin, when 1 was living in Brussels and doing all this work, was about him 
essentially taking control over both the oligarchs and the mafia groups. 

And so basically everyone in Russia works for Putin now. And that's true 
of the diaspora as well. So the Russian mafia in the United States is believed by 
law enforcement criminologists to have - to be under the influence of the Russian 
security services. And this is convenient for the security services because it gives 
them a level of deniability. 




So I'm sorry for the long answer, but essentially, if people who seem to be 
associated with the Russian mafia are buying Trump properties or arranging for 
other people to buy Trump properties, it does raise a question about whether 
they're doing it on behalf of the government. 

MR. SCHIFF: Now, whether they’re doing it on behalf of the government 
or they're doing it - whether they're doing it on behalf of the government, it would 
be your expert opinion that it would be known to the government if it's on -- 

MR. SIMPSON: Certainly. 

MR. SCHIFF: -- any substantial scale? 

MR. SIMPSON: Certainly, yes. 

MR. SCHIFF: Might that provide the Russian Government leverage 
vis-a-vis now-President Trump? 


MR. SCHIFF: So if, as the President's son boasted some years ago, they 
were getting lots of financing from Russia and that financing were illicit, that would 
be known to the Kremlin. 

MR. SIMPSON: I think--1 mean, yes, I think that's true. I think we had 
more specific reporting than that from Chris, and I think it's credible. 

MR. SCHIFF: Now, the work that was produced during that first phase 
with the Free Beacon, what form did that take? Would you be providing, say, like 
30-day reports to the Free Beacon, if you're able to answer? And maybe you can 
say more generically what form that would take. 

We've seen the form of Christopher Steele's reporting, although we don’t 
know what form that would have been presented to your client. But what form 
generally would this information take? 




MR. SIMPSON: So our typical practice is you hire me for a flat fee, you 
don't tell me what to do, and I give you a report in 30 days. And you say, "I'm 
interested in this guy. I think he's a crook." And I say, "Okay, give me 30 days 
and X amount of money, and I'll give you a report." 

If an engagement continues past 30 days, we tend to break out specific 
issues. So once you've done a survey, which is what that initial thing is generally 
called, then you know, "Oh, well, this guy has a long history of gambling problems, 
and we're going to do a separate on his history of gambling problems." It's a little 
like a white paper. 

MR. SCHIFF: You've described the -- and, again, just focusing on the first 
phase information you found about property purchases that were concerning with 
potential Russian money, you've talked about the ties to Felix Sater - were there 
any other Russian links that you found during the first phase? 

MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry for the pause. This issue came up in various 
guises, and I'm trying to think of some specifics. And offhand 1 just --1 mean, 
there were things like - there were ail kinds of random things. 

There were, for instance, one of the -- you know, we bought all of Trump's 
books and all the books about Trump, and I remember there were things about 
trips to Russia, and that was a big thing. 

And there was, prior to the 2013 Miss Universe fair, there was an earlier 
Trump vodka marketing project in Russia that later became something that we 
were very interested in. It's difficult in my mind to get the chronology right, so, you 
know, a lot of these things were coming up in the spring, which is, you know, a 
period when we were ending the first part and starting the second. 

MR. SCHIFF: And what did you find notable about the Trump vodka 





MR. SIMPSON: That it seemed like there was an orchestrated effort by 
someone to help Trump out with - to help him market, you know, these branded 
products in Russia, and that it was -- it was just very mysterious. And then we 
later found some of the people who came up after the first Steele memo were 
involved in some of those efforts. 

And so it seemed to be -- it seemed like it was part of the origin or the 
middle point of this relationship. It was a little further back, where it was a little 
less heavy. 

MR. SCHIFF: And what was the period of-did Trump go to Russia on 
this vodka promotion or his family members? 

MR. SIMPSON: I don't think he was there. I think his representatives 
were there. I don't believe there's a record of him being there himself. 

MR. SCHIFF: And what were the contacts that later emerged in the Steele 


MR. SIMPSON: Well, one of the guys who organized this trip was a guy 
who’s currently known as Sergi Millian. And he's been in the press a good bit, I 
think, although not recently. And, you know, he came up in connection with that, 
and then he came up in connection with Chris’ work as one of the people around 
Trump who had a Russian background, and unexplained, you know, a lot of 
unexplained things. 

So when we looked at him, we found that he ran a sort of shadowy kind of 
trade group called the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce, which 
is — Russians are known to use chambers of commerce and trade groups as 
fronts for intelligence operations. 




And this guy, his name - his real name or his original name that he came to 
the United States wasn’t Sergi Millian. It was Siarhei Kukuts, and that's a pretty 
different name. And he changed his name when he got to Atlanta. 

And when we looked at him some more, we found two different resumes for 
him. In one resume he said he was from Belarus and he went to Minsk State; 
and then in another he was from Moscow and went to Moscow State. In one he 
said he worked for the Belarussian Foreign Ministry; in the other, he said he 
worked for the Russian Foreign Ministry. 

He was a linguist, also an interesting thing about his background. And as 
time went on, yeah, we found other things about him. We found a picture of him 
with Donald Trump. He boasted to people that he had sold hundreds of millions 
of dollars in Trump condos, Trump real estate to Russians, that he was some kind 
of exclusive agent for Trump in Russia and that he organized this trade fair. 

And then, you know, as further time went on, we found he was connected to 
Michael Cohen, the President’s lawyer. And eventually, after boasting about a lot 
of this stuff on camera, on tape, to the TV network, he backed away from all of it 
suddenly when the Russia controversy began to get hot. 

And Michael Cohen was very adamant that he didn't actually have a 
connection to Sergi, even though he was one of only like 100 people who followed 
Sergi on Twitter. And they ~ we had Twitter messages back and forth between 
the two of them just - we just pulled them off of Twitter. 

And then, I guess, last but not least, he, you know - as we became more 
and more interested in his background and the press started to write stories about 
him, it came out that he was associated with this Russian friendship entity called 
Rossotrudnichestvo, and that he was involved in organizing a junket to Moscow for 




some American businessmen that was the subject of an FBI investigation, 
because it was a suspected recruiting operation. And the FBI had questioned 
people who were involved in this trip about whether they were recruited by the 
Russians when they went to Moscow. 

So it was that kind of thing. 

MR. SCHIFF: To your knowledge, was Mr. Millian one of the sources for 
Christopher Steele in the dossier? 

MR. SIMPSON: I'm not in a position to get into the identity of the sources 
for the dossier for security reasons, primarily. 

MR. SCHIFF: And what other concerns were raised or issues were raised 
about Mr. Trump's connections to Russia, either in the first phase or the second 
phase of your work, separate and apart from Mr. Steele's so-called dossier? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, eventually, partly through Sergi Millian, partly 
through other things we learned, we gradually began to understand more about 
■Michael Cohen, the President's lawyer, and his background, and that he had a lot 
of connections to the former Soviet Union, and that he seemed to have 
associations with organized crime figures in New York and Florida, Russian 
organized crime figures. And - 

MR. SCHIFF: And which figures were those? 

MR. SIMPSON: I was afraid you were going to ask me that. I can't 

remember a lot of the names. There was Simon Garber, the taxi king. And I guess 

another guy's name is Evgeny Freidman, who are people he was in 

the taxi business with. 

There was some other transactions that are in some litigation in Florida 
over a mysterious missing payment that some of the people in that dispute had 




been identified as organized crime figures. Those are the ones that come to 

So Mr. Cohen had a very different image for much of the campaign as 
a — simply a sort of pugnacious New York lawyer, and we gradually began to see 
that he was, you know -- people told us he spoke Russian. And his father-in-law 
is from Ukraine. He seems to have a lot of business dealings over there and, in 
fact, has a conviction for a money laundering-related crime. 

All these things caused a good bit of concern. I guess the big one, the 
other big one, was the Agalarovs, who seemed to be, you know, the central figures 
in the Trump-Russia relationship. And so we spent a lot of time looking at them. 

I, as sort of an amateur student of Russian oligarchs and criminals, I hadn't 
come across them before. So I thought - I at first didn't think they were that 
interesting. But as we've, you know, learned more about them, it's become more 

You know, I now --1 know now that they’ve been - the Agalarovs started 
operating in the United States around the time of the fall of the Soviet Union and 
are associated with people who are connected to previous episodes of money 
laundering that are serious, the Bank of New York scandal. 

And they themselves - we found a case in tax court involving the Agalarovs 
that describes a lot of activity from that period and a criminal investigation of the 
Agalarovs from that period. 

MR. SCHIFF: What period was that? 

MR. SIMPSON: Early '90s. And I just know from my reading on this stuff 
that a lot of agents of influence from Russia came to the United States in that 
period to launder money, and that, you know, we now know that the Russian 




Intelligence Services never really closed up shop, and that they continue to insert 
people in the United States and run operations in the United States. 

And so all of that is pretty troubling. I'd say - I could generalize and say 
that, you know, as we've got deeper and deeper into understanding, you know, 
Donald Trump's business career and his history, it gradually reached a point 
where it seemed like most of the people around Trump had a connection to 
Russian organized crime or Russia in one way or another. 

I could probably think of more if I think on it, but those are the big ones. 

MR. SCHIFF: And knowing what you do about the Agalarovs, what do you 
think is the significance of the fact that the - that Aras Agalarov was responsible, 
at least according to these public emails, for setting up the meeting at Trump 

MR. SIMPSON: I think it's a reasonable interpretation that that was a 
Russian Government-directed operation of some sort, based on what I know now. 

MR. SCHIFF: When you continued this work -- and let me just ask you, in 
terms of Free Beacon, you mentioned what your retainer was with Perkins Coie. 
What was your retainer with Free Beacon? 

MR. SIMPSON: I think it was the same. 

MR. SCHIFF: So 50,000 a month? 

MR. SIMPSON: I mean, I don't literally remember. 

MR. SCHIFF: But it v/as in the same ballpark? 

MR. SIMPSON: We generally have a rate, a flat rate. 

MR. SCHIFF: We know of your work vis-a-vis Christopher Steele. Did 
your work for Perkins Coie continue with these Russian lines of inquiry, quite 
separate and apart from what Christopher Steele was doing? 




MR. SIMPSON: Yes. I mean, because we’ve not had liberty to talk about 
all these things, there's been a lot of misconception about this whole process. So, 
you know, it's a much broader project where we’re not just looking at Russia and 
we’re not just doing Russia stuff with Chris. We're doing our own Russia work. 

So, you know, in addition to things like finding someone who can look into a 
Mexican, you know, suit factory to see how they treat their workers, we are 
scanning Russian newspapers or newspapers all around the world for information 
about these subjects. I have staff who prepare white papers on various subjects. 

So without, you know, being too specific about it, in terms of the work 
product, you know, Chris' memos -1 mean, I guess it would be helpful to explain. 
So Chris' memos are raw field memoranda. They're from interviews with his 
source network. I didn't tell him what to write, you know, I didn't edit them. 

They're what came into me from him. And they’re, you know, to my knowledge, 
the only drafts. 

So ordinarily I would take material like that, that I got from a subcontractor 
in the field, and I would incorporate it into a more polished memorandum. And, 
you know, my style is a more journalistic style, so I'm not going to just give you 
what Tom, Joe, and Harry said. I'm going to say, here is what people said, and 
here is what we think that really means, what’s really going on. It's a very 
analytical product. And, you know, that's to sort of guide the client's ability to 
make decisions. 

And in this case, the material that came in from Chris was of such a kind of 
disturbing and serious nature, I didn’t want to do that. 

Five minutes. 

MR. SIMPSON: So, because, you know, I'm an amateur student of a lot of 




this stuff, not a pro. And the line of reporting that was coming in from him was, 
you know, extraordinary and not something that I usually would be doing as a 
research person based in Washington, D.C. So I segregated that, and I never 
incorporated it into anything else. 

MR. SCHIFF: You mentioned the limitations on your ability to follow the 
money in terms of the potential money laundering involving Russian figures in The 
Trump Organization. 

Two questions. One is, did you also look at the Kushner business 
operation? Did you find any facts that caused concern in terms of potential 
money laundering through the Kushner properties or organization? 

And second, we do have the subpoena power that you don't. It is within 
the scope of our investigation to determine whether this was one of the Russian 
active measures, the use of financial means to entangle Mr. Trump. How would 
you go about using that? What institutions would you look at to be able to confirm 
or reject those allegations? 

MR. SIMPSON: On the first question, I — we looked at the Kushner project 
in Jersey City. Kushner was another case of someone who I sort of misjudged. I 
didn’t think he was going to be very interesting and very important, partly because 
he was so young. 

But in any event, we did look at some Kushner stuff and specifically focused 
on the project in Jersey City, I think partly because Trump had a position in that 
project, and discovered that it was -- one of the central mysteries of Donald Trump 
is that, you know, beginning in the mid-2000s he was not a creditworthy 

And so he - you know, so if you're analyzing, you know, someone who 




says they're a billionaire but can't get a bank loan, you know, there's this whole 
issue of where is the credit coming from. And so, you know, we were always 
trying to figure out where — how he was financing various things. 

So anyway, we looked at this Jersey City project, and it was going to be 
financed by selling visas to foreign citizens who were seeking green cards from 
the United States. And I knew from previous investigations that that program 
was - there were a lot of irregularities in that program, and that, in fact, the 
government, the U.S. Government had conducted previous investigations into 
whether foreign intelligence figures were using the EB-5 program to get people 
into the United States. 

So in any event, we looked at all of that. And I don't believe we 
concluded - we found any specific events of fraud, but it all had took on the 
appearance of a controversial thing, which later became true. And, in fact, it did 
become very controversial that they were using EB-5 to fund that project. 

MR. SCHIFF: Did you look at the other -- the Manhattan Tower project of 

MR. SIMPSON: No. No, we never did. 

MR. SCHIFF: Did you ever obtain, with respect to the money laundering 
allegations, any of the President’s tax returns? 

MR. SIMPSON: No. But we did- 
J|: One minute. 

MR. SIMPSON: We did look at other ways of finding out what his practices 
were with regards to taxes, and we found some great, interesting documents in 

Las Vegas, I believe, and various other locations where he would — I think gave 
much more realistic assessments of the income and values of his properties. 




And I suppose he would say he was lowballing them to save on taxes, but I 
think he was actually probably telling more truthful statements about the financial 
condition of a lot of his properties, which was extremely poor. 

So there are interesting real estate tax records among the few tax records 
you can get publicly. 

MR. SCHIFF: We'll yield back to the majority. 

MR. ROONEY: Does the gentleman need a break? 

MR. SIMPSON: I'd love to take a break. 


MR. ROONEY: We are going to get called to votes probably here in the 
next 10 to 20 minutes, so Pm going to try to do a little bit of a lightning round, if I 

But I just want to - you know, generally speaking, with the stories that you 
were telling Mr. Schiff, you know, it's interesting that it seems like - and correct me 
if I'm wrong --it seems like --they’re fascinating, by the way. I mean, the story 
about him financing Doonbeg in Ireland through money that we can’t really 
trace but has sort of the fingerprints of Russian mobsters. 

I mean, I just -- it's almost like we need a plus one. And I'm not saying 
you're wrong. I'm just saying it seems like with all this stuff that there's, you know, 
not the sort of, as what Trey was talking about, allegation versus fact, that, you 
know, with all those things that we talked - that you talked to Adam about, we 
never really got to the fact part. 

Is that true? Or do you feel like with your investigation that you made the 
conclusion that you think that those things are true - or not that you think that they 
are, but they are true? 




MR. SIMPSON: I think it's a great question. The - you know, I mean, 
essentially we ended up spending almost a year on this project. And, you know, it 
was a private - because it's all private work in the sense of nongovernmental, 
without any legal process to compel production of information, we can only reach a 
certain point. 

And at the time that we -- you know, that Chris decided to take this to the 
FBI, I wasn’t convinced of the facts of anything in terms of - I wasn't convinced 
that there was a specific crime that occurred. 

I thought it was a possible crime of progress and that there was possibly 
very serious crimes, but, you know, I’m an ex-journalist, so I'm not really in a 
position to prove that anyone’s engaged in a crime. 

I mean, you know, sometimes you do find proof of criminal activity in an 
investigation, but more often than not you find things that are suggestive or raise 
questions. And - 

MR. ROONEY: Right. That's exactly my point, is that if we knew that 
Donald Trump was working with the Russian mafia to fund Doonbeg in 
Ireland, then there's no way he would be President. So, I mean, that's why it’s so 

And, again, it might have been, but when you also add the caveat "but we 
didn’t" — there wasn't actually Russian names on the ledger or whatever, like that 
final step. And so, you know, I'll equate that to the election as well with your 
opposition research and with the dossier and everything else. 

Do you feel like, you know, we — with what you found or what Mr. Steele 

found that we got to the point where we could conclusively say as fact that the 

Russian Government and the Trump campaign were colluding with each other to 




beat Hillary Clinton? Can we make that final step there? Or is that a lot of 
circumstantial evidence that, you know, one could form an opinion to but never 
gets beyond the - 

MR. SIMPSON: I'm --1 mean, as far as I'm concerned, where we are now, 
as opposed to back then -- back then we had what appeared to be credible 
allegations of some sort of a pattern of surreptitious contacts between the Trump 
campaign and Russian people either working for the government or acting on 
behalf of the Russian Government. As Chris wrote, it was, you know, I think a 
wide-ranging conspiracy, was the way he put it. 

I think that the evidence that has developed over the last year, since 
President Trump took office, is that there is a well-established pattern of 
surreptitious contacts that occurred last year that supports the broad allegation of 
some sort of an undisclosed political or financial relationship between The Trump 
Organization and people in Russia. 

I’m certainly not prepared to say and never wanted to be the person who 
had to determine whether that's a criminal conspiracy. 

MR. ROONEY: Do you with these investigations, like, you know, the 
campaign came and went, the Steele dossier is here, the subject matter, but to 
answer those questions, do you ever continue or did you in this case continue to 
investigate just to see if you could find the answers to those unresolved 

I guess my question is, did you keep investigating even though you weren't 
being paid anymore? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I think it's in the record that, you know, Chris 
continued to supply information to us after the election. And, obviously, in the 




period immediately after the election we were — I don't know if you could say we 
were working on it, but we were certainly unemployed. And obviously this was 
the central issue in my life at that time. Unfortunately, it sort of still is. 

But anyway, so there was - 

MR. ROONEY: Well, if you ever make any conclusions on any of those, 
you probably -- anyway. Go ahead. 

MR. SIMPSON: I mean — 

MR. ROONEY: Let me go to some specific ones, because we are in a 
shorter -- are we 15 minutes? 

Okay. This is our lightning round. 

You may have already answered this with Mr. Gowdy, but did you know 
who Mr. Steele's sources were in Russia? 

MR. SIMPSON: I knew generally where they're positioning. In other 
words, we would discuss generally where that person sat in relation to a senior 
government official or, you know, what other position they held. So - 

MR. ROONEY: Did you generally consider them credible, if you knew 


MR. SIMPSON: Well, you can't --1 mean, I can't evaluate the credibility of 
someone on the other side of the -- 

MR. ROONEY: So you just trusted Mr. Steele's vouch? 

MR. SIMPSON: I have great trust in Mr. Steele's professional ability to find 
sources with credible information. 

MR. ROONEY: Did you know how he paid these sources? 

MR. SIMPSON: Yeah. You know, essentially, my — what I was doing 
was corroborating the information they were providing -- or trying to -- or 




determining whether it was credible. So that was a lot of the work that we did 

I think you asked about paying of sources. I think that's something that's 
erroneous that's been in the press. 

MR. ROONEY: How so? 

MR. SIMPSON: To my knowledge, Chris does not pay sources for 


MR. ROONEY: So they give it up for free? 

MR. SIMPSON: When you're running a source network, essentially what 
you are doing is paying subcontractors to -- 

MR. ROONEY: Right. 

MR. SIMPSON: -- circulate and gather information in conversations. And, 
again, this is not my specialty, which is why I hired him, but essentially it's hiring 
people to go talk to their contacts. 

And I think as a member of the Intelligence Committee that maybe you're 
familiar with this, but they don't - you know, when you have subcontractors in the 
field doing interviews, meeting people in bars, talking shop, they don’t say, "I've 
been hired to go out and ask questions and see what people say," but that’s 
essentially what happens. 

So what I think the misconception is, is that, you know, Chris has got 
people -- or Chris calls people up and says, "I'll give you $5,000 if you tell me 
what's going on with the Trump operation." And that didn't happen. 

MR. ROONEY: Are you sure? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I've asked Chris about it, and he said it 

doesn't -- didn't happen. 




MR. ROONEY: Okay. Do you or anyone else independently verify or 
corroborate any information in the dossier? This is sort of a repeat of a question I 
just asked, but we're talking about verification here. 

MR. SIMPSON: Yes. Well, numerous things in the dossier have been 
verified. You know, I don't have access to the intelligence or law enforcement 
information that I see made reference to, but, you know, things like, you know, the 
Russian Government has been investigating Hillary Clinton and has a lot of 
information about her and is -- and the Trump people are interested in getting that 
information. I mean, that turned out to be true. 

It was also true, you know - I mean, if you just think back to the chronology 
of this, when the original memos came in saying that the Kremlin was mounting a 
specific operation to get Donald Trump elected President, that was not what the 
Intelligence Community was saying. 

The Intelligence Community was saying they are just seeking to disrupt our 
election and our political process, and that this is sort of kind of just a generally 
nihilistic, you know, trouble-making operation. And, you know, Chris turned out to 
be right, it was specifically designed to elect Donald Trump President. 

MR. ROONEY: Do you - did you find anything to -- that you verified as 
false in the dossier, since or during? 

MR. SIMPSON: I have not seen anything - 

MR. ROONEY: So everything in that dossier, as far as you're concerned, 
is true or could be true? 

MR. SIMPSON: I didn't say that. What I said was it was credible at the 
time it came in. We were able to corroborate various things that supported its 




MR. ROONEY: Well, do you know now if anything's false? 

MR. SIMPSON: I did answer that. No, I don't know if anything is false. 
MR. ROONEY: Okay. What media -- 

- 1 |. pj ve m j nu t eSi 

MR. ROONEY: What media outlet did Steele brief regarding the dossier? 

Media outlets. 





[4:18 p.m.] 

MR. SIMPSON: I think what we've said before and what I'm in a position 
to say is that we talked generally about the findings of this to a select group of 
news organizations. 

MR. ROONEY: Which ones? 

MR. SIMPSON: Major media. 

MR. ROONEY: Anything specific? 


MR. ROONEY: Okay. Did you direct Steele to brief the media outlets, 
and why? 

MR. SIMPSON: Yeah. We did it together. Initially, the reason was that 
we were - everyone assumed that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election, 
and when we initially briefed the media, that was our assumption. 

And I have a sort of different longstanding interest, which is Russian 
influence in the United States and foreign interference in elections. And, I mean, 
this may sound hard to believe, but I wanted people to know about what we had 
found, because I thought it was important. And so a lot of the people that we 
briefed weren’t campaign reporters, they were national security reporters. 

And, you know, I started out doing work on this issue of foreign interference 
in American elections at The Wall Street Journal in the '90s, and I wrote a series of 
articles about a Chinese government operation to help elect Bill Clinton. And so 
it's been something that I've been very interested in and concerned about for a 
very long time. 

MR. ROONEY: Did you learn that Steele had briefed the FBI on the 
dossier materials? 




MR. SIMPSON: I eventually learned that, yes. I'm sorry, let me correct 
that. He told me - well, I can walk you through the sequence. 

MR. ROONEY: Just when did he tell you? 

MR. SIMPSON: He originally said: I think we should go - this information 
is national security information. I think we should report it to the FBI. That was 
in July or late June, shortly after the first memo. 

MR. ROONEY: Sixteen? 

MR. SIMPSON: Sixteen. He said: I’m a former intelligence officer, and 
we're your closest ally. You know, I have obligations, professional obligations. If 
there’s a national security emergency or possible national security issue, I should 
report it. 

MR. ROONEY: So this was before he actually did it? 


MR. ROONEY: Okay. 

MR. SIMPSON: And I - so I didn't say okay. I just said: Let me think 
about it, I'm not sure what I should do here. 

MR. ROONEY: So did you give him any direction? 

MR. LEVY: He wasn't finished. 

MR. ROONEY: I'm sorry. 

MR. SIMPSON: It's a quick story. So he said he needed -- that we 
needed to do this or he needed to do this. And I didn't — couldn't think -- first of 
all, he didn’t volunteer that he had a relationship that he could do it. He just 
raised the issue. And at some point he did say --1 said: Well, I wouldn't know 
who to talk to and I don't know --1 just didn't know - feel qualified to do that. And 
he said: I know people at the FBI and I can do it. 




And I said: So you're telling me that you think this is serious enough that it 
needs to be reported to law enforcement, and that you're confident enough in your 
sources, it’s your professional judgment and your professional obligation, that'you 
should report this to the FBI? And he said yes. 

MR. ROONEY: It sounds like you weren't sure if it was serious enough. 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I mean, I don't — he’s the spy and I'm the 
ex-journalist. So basically, he's the one who is a security official by profession. 
And I wasn't going to substitute my judgment for his, that’s correct. 

So he then went to report it to the FBI. And I didn't tell him to do it. I didn't 
tell him not to do it. I assented in it. 

One minute. 

MR. ROONEY: Did you brief or meet with any other intelligence officials 

regarding the dossier? 

MR. MUSE: Could you repeat that question? 

MR. ROONEY: Did you meet with intelligence officials regarding the 

MR. SIMPSON: No one from - that I — no. 

MR. ROONEY: Are you aware on anyone meeting with the CIA regarding 
the dossier? 


MR. ROONEY: Were Perkins Coie, Mark Elias, and the DNC or the Hillary 
team aware that the dossier was being briefed to intelligence officials or the FBI? 
Do you know that? 

MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to — I can’t talk about communications with my 
client, but I can give you what I think is a useful answer, which is that we did not. 




At least i can tell you about generally what I -- what my -- what I did. 

So Chris went and reported this to the Bureau. And he came back and 
said; I reported this to the Bureau. And we did not ask permission from the 
client to do that. The client didn't instruct us to do that. It was -- he was -- you 
know, it was viewed as reporting a crime in progress, sort of a citizenship 

You know, at some point later on, you know, I think that, as the 
questions - I'm not sure how to say this -- as the hack attack by the Russians on 
the Democrats became a major issue in late -- later in the year, questions of 
whether to engage with the FBI, you know, became more of a general issue. 

MR. ROONEY: My time is up, but I will say that I think that the Russian 
scores in that Salt Lake Olympics were pretty low. Very suspicious. I didn't get 
to ask you about that, but -- it's always the Russians. Like everybody's got a 10 
or a 9 and the Russians are like 5. 

MR. SCHIFF: Before I pass it off to Mr. Quigley, you didn't have a chance 
to answer one of the questions I posed at the end. That is, we do have the 
subpoena power. If we are to get to the bottom of the issue of whether Russian 
organized crime money was used in the flipping of these properties and the 
purchase of the golf course and this is a lever over the President, what institutions 
would you use that process with to get to the bottom of it? 

MR. SIMPSON: I guess I would -- if I were issuing the subpoenas, I would, 

you know, first need to identify the underlying -- the banks that had custody of that 
information. That would be the banks that would service the brokers. 

So the first thing that I would do would be to subpoena the brokers and the 
people, the other people that were involved in the transactions, and the title 




companies and the other intermediaries that would have that kind of information. 

Then I would go to the banks next. But I actually think some of the 
intermediary entities in a lot of these transactions are going to be where a lot of the 
information is. 

MR. SQHIFF: And those intermediaries are going to be the real estate 
brokers as well as the licensing companies? 


MR. SCHIFF: And the title companies? 

MR. SIMPSON: Yeah. And then you would - you know, ultimately you 
would find - I mean, in the case of Florida, which is the one where we spent an 
enormous amount of time on, you know, I would subpoena the Diazers (ph). And I 
would subpoena the company that was run by Elena Baronoff, who was the true 
person behind a lot of those deals. And she’s an Uzbek immigrant, suspected 
organized crime figure, who took the Trumps on various tours to Russia, brokered a 
lot of those deals. 

She died of cancer, but -- in 2015 -- but her husband and son still run that 
company and I suspect they still have those records. And that would tell you a 

And in general, I would look at Elena Baronoffs operation. She also had a lot 
of curious involvement with a businessman in Sicily named Dino Papale, who we 
think has organized crime ties as well, and has a lot of interesting relationships with 
the Russians as well, and has hinted strongly that he organized secret meetings 
between Donald Trump and the Russians in Sicily. 

We spent a lot of time looking at that particular network. And I think you 

would ultimately get to the financial institutions by looking at the actual real estate 





MR. SCHIFF: And that particular family, were they involved in the flipping 
of that house with the -- 

MR. SIMPSON: No. No, the Rybolovlev deal, I'm not sure I know that 
much about the brokering of the Rybolovlev deal. 

The other one that I would subpoena is the related group, and they were 
the ones that were involved with the Trump Hollywood. And there was a lot of 
interesting transactions involving the Trump Hollywood. And that was -- that's a 
guy named Jorge Perez, who’s a major developer who was in the picture with 
Sergi Millian and Donald Trump that I was talking about previously. 

MR. SCHIFF: And in terms of the Panama, Canada, and Scotland 
transactions, any suggestions there? 

MR. SIMPSON: So I think in the - I'm trying to think of the creative way to 
do this. I mean, as you may know, you know, most of these transactions are 
cleared through New York. And the other sort of central place for information is 
SWIFT in Brussels. But I would go for the clearing banks in New York that 
cleared the transactions, you know. 

And there's -- again, it's these sort of intermediary entities that have no real 
interest in protecting the information, and ail you have to do is ask for it and they 
just sort of produce it by rote. So we've done a lot of money laundering 
investigations where we go to the trust companies and the clearing entities. 

And so, you know, all dollar transactions are generally cleared through New 
York. So, you know, the main thing you have to do is identify the banks that were 
used. So I don’t know if the money was moved via Deutsche Bank or what the 
other banks were. In fact, I've never gotten around to trying to figure that out. 




MR. SCHIFF: Thank you. 

Mr. Quigley. 

MR. QUIGLEY: Good afternoon. Thanks for being here. 

Let me give you an opportunity. You said that Mr. Steele was a perfect 
hire. I think you used you trusted him a lot. Could you elaborate why you 
thought he was such a perfect hire, why you trusted him so much? I know you 
said you had talked to him, you had met with him. Did you have to do any other 
due diligence or what did you know about him and his reputation before? 

MR. SIMPSON: Sure. So basically the way the information biz works is, 
you know, it's a tricky business. A lot of it is about talent spotting, finding people 
that are reliable, produce reliable information. There's a lot of, I don't know if I’d 
call it fraud, but there's a lot of BS where people tell you stuff that doesn't turn out 
to be right. 

And so, you know, it's sort of like, again, being a journalist, where you're 
trying to figure out who your reliable sources are. So the more exotic the topic, 
the harder it is to find someone who doesn't sell you BS. 

And, you know, one of the problems with the business is that basically if 
you contract with a guy to go find something out or go look into a subject, he 
doesn't - he. rarely comes back and says: I got nothing for you, I wasn't able to 
find anything out. They'll just -- if they can't find anything out, they'll just make it 

So sorry for the long answer. But, anyway, Chris was a reliable provider of 
information that turned out to be reliable. And so -- so there was all that. 

He was also — he just had a very — he was — I think I — I think I might have 

said somewhere else that he was a Boy Scout. And, you know, he's just a fairly 




buttoned-down kind of guy who you could count on to do the work. 

MR. QUIGLEY: When exactly did he start working under contract? 

MR. SIMPSON: My recollection is that, you know, we began talking about 
the - I don't remember when we started talking about the engagement, but the 
work started in June, I believe. 


MR. SIMPSON: Possibly late May, but - 

MR. QUIGLEY: And when would you have gotten the first batch of 
information, or was it all at once? 

MR. SIMPSON: The first memo is dated, I think, June 20th, somewhere 
around there. 

MR. QUIGLEY: Okay. And then how often did you get information and 
what -- was it varied quantities or -- 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, this was a very unusual situation, because right 
around the time that the work started, it became public that the FBI suspected the 
Russians of hacking the DNC. And so there was sort of an extraordinary 
coincidence. It wasn't really a coincidence but, you know, our own interest in 
Russia coincided with a lot of public disclosures that there was something going 
on with Russia. 

And so what was originally envisioned as an original - as just a sort of a 
survey, a first cut of what might be -- whether there might be something interesting 
about Donald Trump and Russia quickly became more of an effort to help my 
client manage a, you know, exceptional situation and understand what the heck 
was going on. 

So after the original reporting, I don't remember what I specifically said, but 




it essentiafly was: I think we're going to need you for the foreseeable future, so 
just keep, you know, talking to your sources and sending us memos whenever you 
have information. 

MR. QUIGLEY: And without getting into the exact communications, when 
did you start alerting your client that this might have been a bigger deal than, as 
you just described it, than originally thought? 

MR. SIMPSON: Yeah. I mean, I think that would call for a confidential 
client communication. I think what I can say is - well, let me put it this way. I 
think it's now public that, you know, the FBI had gone to the DNC prior to this and 
told them, you know, that they'd been hacked by the Russian Government. 

And, you know, foreign intelligence services hacking American political 
operations is not that unusual, actually, and there's a lot of foreign intelligence 
services that play in American elections. And so that in itself isn’t actually totally 
alarming. The Chinese did it last time. Indians do it. But when it became-- 
| Five minutes. 

MR. SIMPSON: When the suggestion that they were going to weaponize 
that information and that this was more than just an intel gathering operation, that 
they were actually going to engage in active measures, that was when, you know, 
it became a major issue. And I think by late June there was a lot of signs that that 
was going to happen. 

MR. QUIGLEY: The dossier was published. Other elements were 
published. What wasn't published? Are there still documents? Is there still 
information that was garnered by either Mr. Steele or others that the public isn't 

aware of at this point, on this point? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, to just put it on the record, we were not the ones 




that gave this document to BuzzFeed, and I was not happy when this was 
published. I was very upset. I thought it was a very dangerous thing and that 
someone had violated my confidences, in any event. 

I think the story is largely known and that there's very little that was left on 
the cutting room table from that time. I think, you know, there’s a little bit of, you 
know, color, I would say. You know, this guy that we were talking about earlier, 
Sergi Millian, isn't named in the dossier, but is someone who was important. 

MR. QUIGLEY: But you also said that - and correct me if I got this 
wrong -- that you continued to get information after the election. 

MR. SIMPSON: Yes, sir. 

MR. QUIGLEY: You still say the same thing, that most of this is out there, 
despite even getting information after the election? 

MR. SIMPSON: I mean, I think that the story of the Russian operation 
against the United States and the pattern of surreptitious contacts between The 
Trump Organization and Russia, I don’t think that's --1 don't think that's --we're 
even anywhere close to having the full story. 

MR. QUIGLEY: But are there any documents you think that would be 
helpful that were accumulated? 

MR. SIMPSON: To the committee? 


MR. SIMPSON: Yes, absolutely. I mean, I think--1 think this tax court 
case involving the Agalarovs is an important document. I think that there's --1 
guess going back to your subpoena question, I also -- you know, the Crocus 
Group has a much longer history in the United States than people realize, and I 
think there's all kind of good documents. 




MR. QUIGLEY: But are there documents that you would have in your 
possession -- 


MR. QUIGLEY: -- that weren't public record that would be helpful? 

MR. SIMPSON: I don't think from that period. Well, so the collection of 
memoranda that are known as the dossier, I mean, that was basically it. I mean, 
there wasn't -- 

MR. QUIGLEY: Now, you say you're familiar with people who do 
intelligence work. I'm sure you're aware that sometimes they talk about levels of 
certainty they have, right? Like on any one issue, how many sources they have, 
how confident they are. 

In your conversations with Mr. Steele, did he express his level of certainty 
on these matters? 

MR. SIMPSON: So, I mean, I'm not intimately familiar with how the Brits 
do it, but they seem to do it a little differently. Chris' standard presentation, I 
mean, essentially, you know, because he's a Russianist, his standard presentation 
starts with a little talk about disinformation. 

Then he says, you know: I was the lead Russianist at MI6 in the final 
years of my career. And I was previously stationed in Moscow. And I speak 
Russian. And I've done Russian intelligence/counterintelligence issues all my life. 
And the central problem when you’re a Russian intelligence expert is 
disinformation, and that the Russians have, you know, a long history and an 
advanced capability in disinformation. 

And so, you know, before we go any further, I just want you to know that, 

you know, this is my -- the fundamental problem with my profession. And it 




should be assumed that in any sort of intelligence gathering that you do there will 
be some disinformation. And I'm trained to spot that and filter it out, but, you 
know, you should understand that it's -- you know, no one’s perfect. 

And so we've essentially filtered out everything that we think is 
disinformation and we’re not going to present that to you here. We're going to 
present to you things that we think come from credible sources, but we're not 
going to warrant to you that what we - that this is -- that this is all true. And, you 

know -- 


He said it was raw data. Is that correct? 


In some an respect? 

It's HUMINT, right? It's human source information. 

One minute. 

MR. SIMPSON: And humans sometimes lie, and more frequently they just 

get it wrong. 

MR. QUIGLEY: Did he ever, in talking to you subsequent to the release of 
the document, say that he thought he would alter any of it after the fact or 
information he had gathered later? 

MR. SIMPSON: I have - I have talked to him about that. And he 
remains - he continues to believe that it is largely not disinformation. 

MR. QUIGLEY: I think that’s our time. We have votes, right? 

MR. ROONEY: We have to vote. Before we break, I just want to ask one 
question, based on Adam's question, just so I don't forget, and then we'll come 
back, if that's cool. 

All those questions that Mr. Schiff asked about, you know, with the 




subpoena power and where we would go if we wanted to find out about Scotland 
and Panama and Toronto and Ireland, and you were talking about like the brokers 
and I guess the banks in Switzerland and New York, my only question is, why 
didn't you do that? 

MR. SIMPSON: I don't have subpoena power. 

MR. ROONEY: So there's no other way that you could - there's no other 
way that you could access that information other than just subpoena, having a 
subpoena in those countries? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I mean, the way that I would do it if I was a U.S., 
you know, entity that had subpoena power is I would figure out -- 

MR. ROONEY: No, not us. Like you, as Fusion, an opposition research 
guy, why couldn't you do it? 

MR. SIMPSON: Because it's generally not legal. Financial privacy 


I mean, so my specialty and the reason that I -- 

MR. ROONEY: That's fine. I just didn’t know that. All right. Thank you. 

|: Are you okay to keep going? 

MR. LEVY: Yes. Let me just say one thing. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

J|: Okay to continue? 


L. Great, thanks. So I think we have it for 15, and we’ll go. 

We're still doing 15-minute rounds. Mr. Rooney took about 2 minutes asking his 

question, so I’ve got about 13 left. 





Q I just want to circle back to a couple things, Mr. Simpson. 

When you say Christopher Steele provided you with raw data, you know, 
we take that to mean that that's information that has not been analyzed through 
the rest of, you know, the 1C apparatus, for lack of a better term. Would you 
agree that that's what raw data is and that's what he gave you? 

A I think I was using it in a somewhat less technical way. But, you 
know, but colloquially speaking, I mean, it was just sort of intended to say: Yes, 
this is field - information from the field that has been collected, and it has been 
subjected to some level of sifting and analysis by Chris, because he's attempted to 
filter out unreliable sources or disinformation. 

And so it’s not totally raw. I mean, it's been through one round of 

Q So Mr. Steele communicated to you that he had done some analytical 
work on the data that he provided you? 

A Yeah. I mean, he said he applied his professional skills to this to 
figure out whether it was credible. 

Q Right. It's not like he just wrote everything down on a piece of paper 
and then handed it to you. He did apply his professional skills to it somewhat? 

A Yeah. I mean, you can take that from reading the stuff that's been 
published. I mean, he put some level of summarizing what -- you know, 
essentially what he did was he talked to enough sources that you can summarize 
what they collectively are telling you, and that's in the writing of the memos. 

Q And to follow up on Mr. Quigley's questioning, there was some 
information — you said the large bulk of it is published in the dossier that was 




published by BuzzFeed, but there was some information that's not out there. Is 
this some information that Mr. Steele provided you in relationship to the work you 
had hired him to perform for you? 

A What I was specifically referring to was there's discussions of identities 
of sources that we had, and obviously that's not in there. And, you know, I can’t 
think of another specific thing that's not in there, but there's like pieces of work that 
we -- you know, things that didn't make it in there that he conveyed to me orally 
that weren’t that significant. I can’t think of examples of them. 

But I guess I was trying to be really careful to say that, you know, we 
worked -- we did this project over a number of months and we had discussions of 
things that didn't make it into the memos. 

Q Is that recorded somewhere, all that other information - 

A No. 

Q -- at your company? 

A No. 

Q No. So it doesn't exist? 

A It's - right. It's -- I'm referring to mostly phone conversations and 

Q But you didn't record any notes or anything like that? 

A I don't do that, no. 

Q Okay. Just checking. 

1 just want to check back to your relationship with Perkins Coie. Did you, 
Fusion, you, Mr. Simpson, or somebody at your behest approach Perkins Coie, or 
did they approach you? 

A I don’t -- I don't have firsthand knowledge of that question. I think ~ I 




can tell you that the original discussions were not handled by me. They were 
handled by my partner. So I don't think he's going to be in a position to talk about 
it, but I don't even --1 mean, to the extent I know anything, it's just secondhand. I 
don't have a good memory of it. 

Q Okay. And your partner being? Sorry. 

A Peter Fritsch. 

Q Okay. Thank you. And your relationship with Perkins Coie, remind 
me, lasted about how many months? 

A So this is — so I'm the chief executive, and I generally interface with 
clients, but we have a division of labor. I don't do the invoicing and 1 don't keep 
the financial records. So it's very difficult for me to tell you things that I think you 
have in your financial records anyway. 

But if you're talking substantively, the Perkins Coie engagement ended with 
the election. And whether there was money that came in the door from them after 
that, overhang from the work, would be normal. 

Q Did your relationship with Perkins Coie involve you doing any work on 
any other candidates, Republican or Democrat? 

A You mean under this engagement? 

Q Yes. 

A That's a great question. 1 don't recall. I don't think so. I think the 
primaries were over and Trump was -- wasn’t the official nominee, but he was the 
obvious nominee. 

Q Were there other engagements with Perkins Coie that are related 
relevant to our matter that you did do research for other folks? 

MR. LEVY: Can you repeat that question? 




|: Sure. Were there — he mentioned that there may have been 

other engagements. So I’m asking if there are any other engagements that are 
relevant to our investigation in which they were tasked to do - he and Fusion were 
tasked to do research on whomever. 

MR. LEVY: Are you asking about other engagements with Perkins Coie? 


MR. LEVY: That are relevant to your investigation? 


Q Correct. 

A Well, I mean, of course, it's your power to say what's relevant and not 
ours, but I don’t think there was — we didn't do anything else in 2016 with them. 

Q Okay. 

A Sorry. 

Q That’s fine. 

A I want to--so just on this question of the finances, we were talking 
about how much money we got from the various clients before, and I think --1 think 
it’s in the records and I need to just - I'd just like to note that the Free Beacon, I 
don't remember how much they paid us, but it doesn't --1 think it’s not $50,000 a 
month. I don't know what it was. 

Q Okay. In speaking with them - 

A And the same with Perkins. I'm sorry, but it's not my strong suit. 

Q Okay. We'll rely on the record. 

Switching over to your relationship with the Free Beacon, was it your 

position, your relationship and your engagement with the Free Beacon, that you 

were only to do — collect information and research against or on then-candidate 




Trump or others as well in that process? 

A My recollection was that from the beginning of the project it was 
Donald Trump. And if at some point somebody - so - and that was my primary if 
not sole focus for the entirety of the project. I can't speak for whether someone in 
my company was asked about something else. 

Q Okay. So it's possible the Free Beacon also asked your company to 
conduct research on others that were running for President at the time? 

A It's possible. I don't have knowledge of it. 

Q Okay. Do you know who would, or would there be any records of it? 

A You know, I guess we -- yeah. My partner would be the other person 

that would get a request like that, but beyond that I don't really know. 

Q Your partner again being Mr. -- 

A Peter Fritsch. 

Q -- Fritsch. Are there any records of that? Would there be any 
records of that, of documenting what you were hired to work on? 

A I don't know. 

Q Do you know who would know? 

A My partner. 

Q Peter Fritsch. Okay, thank you. 

Switching gears a little bit, going over to you testified earlier that Mr. Steele 
went to the FBI at a certain point in time, approximately late June 2016. Is that 

A Yeah. I think what i said was he raised the issue of going to the FBI 
with me after the first memo. And I didn't give him an answer or I didn't sign off 
on that. And then he raised it again a few days later. 




And by approximately early July, like 1st or 2nd, I had given my assent to 
him doing it as a professional obligation or a citizenship obligation. And then 
that's when he did it, sometime around the 4th of July. 

Q So in early July, is it fair to say in early July that you knew that 
Mr. Steele had taken some information to the FBI? 

A I think he said he was going to, and then later he told me he did. 

Q When did that occur, approximately? 

A I think it was probably right after the 4th of July. 

Q Okay. So not like a month later? 

A No. 

Q Okay. Did he tell you about any other communications he had with 
the FBI in relation to this matter? 

A Yes. The - originally, he told me: I met with them and I informed 
them of my concerns. And they said thank you and said they would get back to 
us if they were going to follow up, if they needed to follow up. 

And we were sort of almost immediately plunged into, you know, a very 
intense situation with regard to the -- the hacking attacks that were going on, and 
so it didn't come up again for, you know, weeks if not months. 

Q Do you know if he, Mr. Steele, informed the FBI about your 
relationship, that is, the relationship he had with you and Fusion GPS? 

A I don't -- my recollection is that he disclosed that he was doing this for 
a private client, and that he would have disclosed something about who the private 
client was. 

I also don't think, though, that Chris at this time knew the identity of the 

client. And so initially, at least, he would have been only able to say:. I have a 




political client, a Democratic client or something like that, which is what I would 
have told him. So I don't think he was in a position to disclose the identity of the 
client to the FBI originally. 

Q I don't mean the client. I mean you and Fusion GPS. 

A I don’t know. But probably, because he - 
Q Do you know if he did? 

A No, I don't. So there was a long period where we didn't hear from 
them. And then later they got back in touch with Chris and asked for a second 

Q Did the FBI ever reach out to you or Fusion GPS in relation to the 
matters that Mr. Steele informed them upon? 

A No. 

Q You've never heard from anyone in the U.S. Government in relation to 


those matters, either the FBI or the Department of Justice? 

A After the election. I mean, during the election, no. 

Q What did you hear after and from whom and when? 

A I was asked to provide some information to the Justice Department. 

Q By whom and when? 

A It was by a prosecutor named Bruce Ohr, who was following up. 

You know, I can’t remember when. It was sometime after Thanksgiving, I think. 

Q Thanksgiving of 2016? 

A Yes. 

Q Did Mr. Ohr reach out to you, or how did that shake out? Originally, 

A I think Chris - it was someone that Chris Steele knows. I 

think - 




Q I'm sorry. Chris Steele knows who? 

A Bruce Ohr. 

Q Okay. 

A And I met Bruce too through organized crime conferences or 
something like that. And Chris said he had been - Chris told me that he had 
been talking to Bruce, that he had told Bruce about what happened, and that 
Bruce wanted more information, and suggested that I speak with Bruce. 

The context of this is that it was after the election. A very surprising thing 
had happened, which is that Donald Trump had won. There was — we were — by 
that time, we were enormously concerned about rapidly accumulating indications 
that the Russian Government had mounted a massive attack on the American 
election system and that, you know, Donald Trump or his associates might have 
been involved. 

And there was a lot of alarming things happening, including Donald Trump 
saying things about Vladimir Putin that didn’t really make any sense, weren't 
ordinary things for a Republican to say, and, you know -- anyway. 

So we had also by this time given this information to the FBI, and they had, 
you know, told - indicated to Chris that they were investigating it, and then 
told — apparently told The New York Times they weren't. 

And so it was not clear to us whether anyone at a high level of government aware of the information that Chris had gathered and provided to the FBI. 
And, you know, so we were, frankly, you know, very scared for the country and for 
ourselves and felt that if we could give it to someone else, we should, higher up. 

And so Chris suggested I give some information to Bruce, give him the 

background to all this. And we eventually met at a coffee shop, and I told him the 





My time is up. Thank you. 

Over to you guys. 

Off the record. We're going to take a 5-minute break. 


My name is| 

We can go back on the record. 

1 I’m with the minority staff. I suspect my 

|may also have questions. He’s the j 

for the 



Q I wanted to clarify first, if you recall, how many reports did you produce 
for the Washington Free Beacon? I believe you did it on generally a monthly 
basis. So - 

A I think what --1 think what I said was that our practice when we begin 
an engagement is to do reports on a monthly basis, and that, you know, it would 
have been regular order in this case. 

I don't recall specifically how many, and I can't really - I mean, it would 
be - it would be -- right, it is covered by client confidentiality, but I also think it 
would be guessing. 

Q Okay. 

A In general, what happens as an engagement unfolds is that after 2 or 
3 months of producing monthly reports, again, we branch out into subject areas 
and we start producing white papers. And so if an engagement lasts for 6 
months, you can assume that there's a lot of subpapers on individual subjects. 

Q So you were employed by the Free Beacon for 8 or 9 months, I 




believe, based on your prior testimony. Does that sound about right? 

A Yeah. So I think what I said was that we began the work in 
September or October of 2015, and it began to wind down in the spring as the 
primaries began to wind down. And the financial records, there's some lag time in 
financial records, so I don't - I can't say what they show. 

Q Do you keep copies of all the reports you provide to your clients? 

A It depends on the case. Sometimes we - I mean, the work product is 
the property of the client. So we frequently are asked to hand over all of our 
copies or certify that they've been disposed of. 

Q Mr. Simpson, you mentioned earlier that you did not incorporate what 
has become known as the Steele dossier, that you did not incorporate that into 
your reports, as is your normal practice. .Is that - am I understanding correctly? 

A Yes. Yes, that’s what I said. 

Q So did that -- those raw reports, I'll call it the Steele dossier, did that 
product go to your client, Perkins Coie? 

A I can’t answer that, if it did. 

Q Would you have provided ~ let me step back. 

Is it fair to say that in the course of your Trump research for Perkins Coie, 
that research included work separate from what Chris Steele conducted? 

A A large amount of v/ork. 

Q Moving to a slightly different topic. In the course of your work for both 
the Washington Free Beacon and Perkins Coie, what other individuals associated 
with President Trump came up in your research who would have been a concern? 

A There were a large number of other individuals that we looked at that 
were seriously concerning. And we -- there were numerous Italian organized 




crime figures that we identified that Donald Trump had relationships with and 
clearly knew were criminals. 

Q When you hired Mr. Steele, did you tell him what to look for in his 

A No. I -- generally speaking, you know, the challenge is to find 
qualified, reliable people, and, you know, when I have those people, I tend to not 
tell them what to do, much like I tend to push back on people who try to tell me 
what to do. 

Q Did you tell Mr. Steele what you expected him to find? 

A No. 

What I will say is I was quite shocked by what he came back with, and what 
I — the general mandate was to look into Donald Trump's business dealings in 
Russia and to see if he could come up with a little bit more information about who 
is doing business over there and why, you know, in the course of all these trips he 
never seemed to be able to consummate a deal. So that was the general 

Q Did you ever task Mr. Steele with finding certain information related to 
his business dealings or anything else? 

A I think in the latter parts of the project there were things I specifically 
asked about. The one that comes to mind is Michael Cohen. As I mentioned a 
little earlier, I didn't understand Michael Cohen to be a significant figure in the 

Donald Trump world for a long part of this project. 

We eventually began to realize that he was a lot more than, you know, the 
President's sort of pit bull personal attorney and that he was the person who --1 
mean, a number of things came up in the course of the year. 




One of the things that we learned that caught my interest was we learned 
from reporters that serious questions about Donald Trump’s activities in Russia 
and the former Soviet Union went to Michael Cohen, and that he was the only 
person who had information on that subject or was in a position to answer those 

So if you ask about Donald Trump's taxes, it goes to Allen Garten. And if 
you ask about, you know, his position on something, it would go to Hope Hicks. 
And none of these things - these things go - went to Michael Cohen. 

! I just realized that Congressman Swalwell is in the room, so 

I’m going to turn it over to him. 

MR. SWALWELL: Thank you, Mr. Simpson. 

And earlier you stated that you didn't think Jared Kushner was relevant 
because of his age, and I had interrupted. I said, I take offense to that. 

But just on Michael Cohen, and I'll turn it back over to our staff. Did you 
ever research whether Michael Cohen had any aliases or other names that he 
used? Did you ever find anything out about that? 

MR. SIMPSON: A little bit. The possibility that he had two passports or 
used a different formulation of his name was something --1 can't remember - we 
asked around about or thought about trying to get information on, but ultimately did 

MR. SWALWELL: Did you ever come across the name Michael Cohn, 
C-o-h-n, with links, common addresses but different social security numbers? 

MR. SIMPSON: I think my staff probably did come across stuff like that, 
but we didn't make much of it. It looked like a typo. 

MR. SWALWELL: When it came to Donald Trump Jr., did you have similar 




concerns, as you've mentioned with Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kushner, as to his 
contacts with Russians as it related to money or investments for the Trump 

MR. SIMPSON: Yes. I'm trying to remember. In general, we knew from 
the open source work that we had done that Donald Trump Jr. was - had done a 
lot of travel to Russia and was involved in a lot of these discussions, that he’d 
done — he'd gone to Kazakhstan for reasons that we didn't - we weren't sure of, 
he'd gone to Latvia, and he'd been to Russia. And we eventually formed the view 
that the Russians were very interested in him or that he'd had a lot of deals with 

I don't remember a lot of specifics beyond that. 

MR. SWALWELL: What is your knowledge of Donald Trump, Donald J. 
Trump, the father's travel to Russia? Can you tell us how many times you believe 
he has traveled to Russia, in your research? 

MR. SIMPSON: I believe that he's been to Russia a minimum of four or 
five times, and that he's been going to Russia since the late Soviet years. 

And we -- we did spend a lot of time digging into the origins of his interest in 
Russia and his fascination with Russia and ifs an interesting tale. I mean, 
it's -he —one of the few people who Donald Trump calls like a good friend is a 
guy named Howard Lorber, who is a real estate investor. 

And Lorber was one of the —one of the early -there was sort of a 
swashbuckling crowd of American investors who moved into Russia in those early 
years when it was really wild. And Lorber —I'm trying to remember the 
names of the other ones, but there was a small group of people and Donald was 
pretty tight with them. 




And, again, that was one of the reasons the whole thing struck me as 
mysterious, because it seemed like he had been there, you know, numerous times 
and never come back with a deal. And, you know, there could be an innocent 
explanation for that, which is that he could never find somebody that - you know, 
an honest partner. In any event, I wanted to try to figure that out. 

MR. SWALWELL: Does the name Bennett LeBow sound familiar to 


MR. SIMPSON: LeBow is an associate of Lorber's, and Liggett-Ducat was 
his company. And they are the ones who, it appears, introduced Donald 
Trump to Russia, from what we can tell. 

MR. SWALWELL: To your knowledge, prior to the 2013 trip for Miss 
Universe, when had he last gone to Russia? 

MR. SIMPSON: There's reporting in the Steele memos about another trip 
prior to that to St. Petersburg. 

MR. SWALWELL: When do you believe that trip took place? 

MR. SIMPSON: I would be guessing. 

MR. SWALWELL: I'm going to yield back to the ranking member. And 
Mr. Castro might have some questions. 

MR. CASTRO: In all of your research and your review of Trump assets, 
did you come across any reason to believe that any Kushner assets had been 
used to pay off Trump debts or there was any mixing of the businesses by the two 
families and companies? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, the Jersey City project was - I remember there was 
some Trump involvement in the Jersey City project, which was kind of a Kushner 
branded project. So there clearly was things that they were doing together. 




What we heard from people familiar with the story was that the Kushner 
family and their connections were a big attraction for Trump before the marriage 
and that, you know --1 mean, I don't want to - I'm trying to be polite about it, but, I 
mean, there was a business element to the whole, you know, connection. And I 
will hasten to add that I was not able -- 
One minute. 

MR. SIMPSON: - to confirm any of this, and I didn't share this widely, 
certainly not in any kind of formal way with anyone. 

You know, the Kushners are ethnic Russian and they, we were told, had 
relationships of their own with Russian capital. And, you know, the exact story I 
think was that their relationships were with the Russian diaspora in the New York 

So more broadly speaking, during the 70s, in the Refusenik era, there was 
a lot of Russian Jewish immigration to the New York area. And a lot of those 
people had -- well, I'll just say there was a lot of immigration, and that community 
is very large, and a lot of people became very successful and wealthy. And, as I 
understand it, those are the connections that the Kushners have to outside capital. 

MR. CASTRO: Thank you. 


Q Mr. Simpson, good afternoon. Thank you for being here. I'mm 

a member of the majority staff. 

Switching gears, could you please briefly describe for us Fusion’s 
engagement with the Baker Hostetler law firm in connection with the Prevezon 
litigation in the Southern District of New York? 

A Sure. Baker Hostetler is a big Midwestern Republican-oriented law 




firm that is one of my oldest clients. And I began working for Baker, I believe, in 
2009 or *10, and I've done a number of cases with them. And I generally provide 
litigation support, which is research, gathering documents, figuring out who to 
subpoena, and sometimes dealing with witnesses and media and other things. 

I think the Prevezon matter was probably the fourth or fifth matter I've done 
with them. They’re very serious, sober, reputable attorneys, and I like working 
with them. 

And so they approached me originally in late 2013 with this matter. I didn't 
know anything about Prevezon, didn't know anything about most of this stuff. 

Didn't know who Browder was, William Browder was. 

But, in any event, the original issue that was presented to me was not really 
a Russia issue, it was a money - it was like a technical question about money 
laundering, which was whether the government could possibly prove that money 
from some specific fraud in Russia went into these projects in New York, these 
real estate projects. 

And John Moscow, one of the partners there, who's an old contact of mine 
from when he was a money laundering prosecutor and I was a money laundering 
reporter, walked me through the technical aspects of the financial transactions. 

And to my -1 was skeptical, but he persuaded me that there were some 
assumptions and leaps in logic that were made about the chain of entities and 
banks that raised questions about whether they could really prove that this money 
from over here went to this property over there. 

So I was -- so that was - originally we were retained to help with the technical 
aspects of it. And I think more broadly as it, you know, became — I 




guess — well, sorry. 

So I didn't agree to work on it at that time. I believe we discussed it. They 
went away. Then they came back a few months later, which would have been 
early 2014, when it had become more apparent to them that this was going to be a 
significant piece of litigation, and said: We want to bring you on for litigation 

And, again, litigation support, I had done it for them before. Basically, you 
know, use your journalistic skills to help us gather information, who to subpoena, 
read documents, write analyses of evidence, all of that. And then, as you get into 
the sort of more public phase of a court dispute, help them manage all the public 
aspects as well. 

So while 1 don’t, you know, I don't run a PR firm, part of that is, you know, 
the media aspects of litigation support. So I think - I think the original 
engagement covered all of those things. 

So in the early phase of this, the very first thing that we — I remember 
having to do was help investigate the client. 

So I didn't - we didn't know much about the client. Obviously, the lawyers 
have responsibility to evaluate whether the client is engaged in anything improper, 
and they certainly have to determine the sources of their funds. 

And they represented to me that this was a minor player in Russia, and to 
the --1 couldn't find much on them myself. There was ~ you know, it's just a fairly 
obscure real estate company. 




[5:29 p.m.] 

MR. SIMPSON: You know, I don't know the entire landscape of oligarchs 
in Russia, but these guys are obviously not significant oligarchs in Russia. That’s 
what we could tell. 

In any event, the first thing that a lawyer wants to know at the beginning of 
a case like this, and most cases, is whether their client’s story is true. So that was 
the first thing that we did was we interviewed the client. They interviewed the 
client and got the client’s story. 

And the client's story was that these allegations that were in this Justice 
Department forfeiture complaint originated with an organized crime figure in 
Moscow, who had been blackmailing them and had been prosecuted, arrested and 
prosecuted for blackmailing them. 

So we had to investigate whether that story was true. So we, you know, 
spent a long time looking at this guy. His name is Dimitry Barenovsky (ph). And 
the story that Natalia Veselnitskaya provided to us was that he was a captain in the 
Solntsevo brotherhood, which is the dominant mafia family in Moscow and known - 
you know, it surfaces in parts of the Trump story, bizarrely, and was run by a guy 
named Semion Mogilevich. 

So Natalia is the one telling us the this story because she is the lawyer for 
Prevezon and had apparently been involved in this extortion matter, and so she's 
got all the information from the courts about this alleged shakedown. And she 
was introducing me as some kind of former government lawyer who's the one who 
hired Baker. 

So I worked for Baker, and she's the one who hired Baker. I didn't get to 

introduced to her originally. This was information she provided to Baker that they 




then provided to me. 

In any event, we eventually were able to confirm that the story was basically 
true, that this guy was a gangster, he was known to western law enforcement as a 
gangster, and he, in fact, had been prosecuted and thrown in jail for this extortion 

So then the question was, well, how did this story get from a convicted 
gangster in Moscow into a Justice Department forfeiture complaint? And so the 
lawyers, the Baker lawyers deposed a government agent, an ICE agent who did 
the work, did the investigation, and he said he got it from this businessman named 
William Browder. 

And so then the question became, well, where did Browder get it from? 

Did he get it from the gangster, or was it, you know, from some other source? So 
we began to try to do various types of discovery to figure all that out. So I may 
have --1 don't know if I'm giving you too much here, but this is basically the origin 
of this case. 

So over the course of 2014, most of what I did was looking at this Russian 
organized crime figure, looking at, you know, all the events around the extortion 
case in Russia, and had to try to help them to figure out how all this information 
somehow made its way into a Justice Department civil forfeiture complaint. 

And eventually, that led us to Mr. Browder, who is a former American 
citizen, who gave up his citizenship and moved - when he started making a lot of 
money in Russia, and was living in the UK. And he didn't want to explain any of 
this to us. 

We originally wrote him a letter. The lawyers wrote him a letter saying, can 
you tell us what's going on here, and he declined. And so then the lawyers asked 




me to figure out how we could subpoena him. So I found that his hedge fund was 
registered in Delaware and therefore had corporate presence in'the United States, 
which meant that, theoretically, at least, he can be subpoenaed through his hedge 
fund because he was listed as an officer in the records. 

So we subpoenaed the hedge fund. We then retroactively filed new 
documentation with the SEC, taking his name off the record, said it was all a 
mistake. And he said you can't subpoena me. I’m not really an officer of that 
hedge fund. 

So we were, you know - that was litigated for a while. And meanwhile, the 
lawyers said, see if you can figure out another way to subpoena this guy. And his 
position was that, you know, he was - you know, he had brought this case to the 
Justice Department but he didn't want to be questioned about bringing this case to 
the Justice Department, and that he was immune from being questioned about it 
other than through the Hague process because he's a foreign citizen. 

So, you know, we knew he was appearing in the media a lot, and then he 
probably came to the U.S. to do media appearances and other events. And so 
we began to look at that, and I just began doing what I would normally do, which is 
to look at other things about this witness, what else do we need to know about this 
witness, especially because they don't want to be open with us. 

So eventually I discovered that he owned a mansion in Aspen, Colorado, or 
at least he seemed to. He was connected to it by real estate records and DMV 
records, but it was held through some shell companies. 

Anyway, we were looking at that, and I don't remember the exact sequence 

of events, but someone, I think the lawyers or maybe me and my staff, discovered 
that he was going to be in Aspen for an event. So we organized a service, a 




subpoena service, which I supervised. 

And we had a private investigator, a lawyer, and another, I think, PI and, 
you know, we organized to confront him in the parking lot of the Aspen Institute 
and serve him a subpoena. And when we did that, he ran away, so jumped in his 
limo and -- or his SUV and went back to his mansion. So dropped the subpoena 
on the ground. 

So that commenced a lot more litigation over whether we had adequately 
served him a subpoena, whether a subpoena in Colorado is valid for an action in 
New York. And, you know, I was -- that was a lot of what I did. 

His resistance to cooperating with the civil process, of course, made us 
more curious about why he was, you know, determined to not cooperate with the 
civil process, and to the point of changing lawyers, hiring ever-more expensive law 
firms, and spending what must have been large sums of money to not cooperate 
with a civil subpoena. And so that made me curious about why he didn't want to 

And I'll add parenthetically that when I was working as a reporter and living 
in Brussels and investigating Russian corruption and organized crime, i had met 
Mr. Browder and asked him for help investigating Vladimir Putin, and he had 
lectured me on Putin not being corrupt and being a bit - someone who's very 
helpful to - the best thing that had happened to Russia in a long time. 

And at that time, Browder was making a lot of money in Russia. So 
anyway, so in light of all of that, I became curious and it was part of my job to 
investigate the activities of Mr. Browder in Russia and his hedge fund in Russia. 

And so, you know, in 2014 and I think 2015, we spent a lot of time looking 
into his hedge fund in Russia and how they made their money, who their clients 




were, in addition to, you know, litigating all these other issues about whether we 
had served him adequately. 

We discovered, you know, many things about his activities in Russia and 
his general finances, his pattern of avoiding taxation, his use of offshore shell 
companies and tax haven jurisdictions, particularly in Cypress and the BVI. 

We identified a number of his clients. And, you know, we kept trying to 
subpoena him. Eventually - again, he kept saying I have no connection to the 
U.S., I never go there, we kept finding more houses. We found a house in New 
Jersey. All of this is in the court record, and it's all public information. 

Ultimately, we found him in New York City, outside of The Daily Show, and 
served him a third time. And this time we taped the whole thing, and he did the 
same thing. He jumped out of the limo and he dropped the subpoena and he ran 
away, so — but this time it was all on tape and we had already litigated all this. 

And the judge was very familiar with this scenario. 

And, you know, as all the other discovery was taking place, it became more 
and more apparent that, you know, Bill Browder had taken this information and 
given it to the government and that, you know, he was the source of these 
allegations. And so it became more and more important to understand why he 
was making these allegations and, you know, whether he had any basis to do so. 

We'll leave it there for now. Thank you. 

MR. SCHIFF: Mr. Simpson, just to follow up, you mentioned that one of 
the things that you found suspicious was that Mr. Trump would go to Russia or his 
son would go to Russia, and they seemed to have a great interest in Russia but 

never came back with any deals. 





MR. SCH1FF: And what was your suspicion that they did come back with? 
Are you suggesting that what they came back with was not a real estate deal but 
rather - or not a real estate deal in Russia but rather Russian money that would 
be used in Trump properties? 

MR. SIMPSON: No, I'm not suggesting that. I mean, you know, there is 
my state of mind at the time and what I think now or what we eventually began to 
think. I honestly didn't have any preconceived notions about what was going on. 

I found it puzzling. 

And, I guess, my initial thought was that he, you know --1 mean, the wrap 
on Donald Trump is he says he's a great businessman, but he's really not a great 
businessman. And he talks a good game and a lot of it is baloney. And so, you 
know, I thought -- one of the things I thought was that he wants to do a deal in 
Russia, but his lawyers won't let him because of the FCPA. 

And that every time he gets close to closing a deal in Russia, it gets shot 
down by his own lawyers because they think he’s going to get prosecuted for 
some sort of corruption offense. And that was my hypothesis, I would say, in the 
early part of this. 

What I later came to believe was that he was, in fact, developing different 
kinds of business relationships with the Russians than, you know, the sort of 
marquee thing that he always talked about, which was building a tower in Moscow, 
and that, in fact, you know, he’d found other ways to profit from his relationship 
with that. 

The Miss Universe contest was a profitable venture for him, and I don't think 
we have a full accounting of, you know, how much he got paid and where the 
money came from for putting that on in Russia. But we know that it was — what 




we’ve seen is that it was 10 million, and I think it came from the Agalarovs. So 
that was one. 

There's the Trump vodka business that was earlier. And then ultimately, 
you know, what we came to realize was that the money was actually coming out of 
Russia and going into his properties in Florida and New York and Panama and 
Toronto and these other places. 

And what we, you know, gradually begun to understand, which, you know, I 
suppose I should kick myself for not figuring out earlier, but I don’t know that much 
about the real estate business, which is I alluded to this earlier, so, you know, by 
2003, 2004, Donald Trump was not able to get bank credit for - and if you're a 
real estate developer and you can't get bank loans, you know, you've got a 

And all these guys, they used leverage like, you know -- so there's 
alternative systems of financing, and sometimes it's - well, there's a variety of 
alternative systems of financing. But in any case, you need alternative financing. 

One of the things that we now know about how the condo projects were 
financed is that you have to ~ you can get credit if you can show that you've sold a 
certain number of units. 

So it turns out that, you know, one of the most important things to look at 
is -- this is especially true of the early overseas developments, like Toronto and 
Panama -- you can get credit if you can show that you sold a certain percentage of 
your units. 

And so the real trick is to get people who say they’ve bought those units, 
and that's where the Russians are to be found, is in some of those pre-sales, is 
what they're called. And that's how, for instance, in Panama they got the credit 




of — they got a - Bear Steams to issue a bond by telling Bear Stearns that they’d 
sold a bunch of units to a bunch of Russian gangsters. 

And, of course, they didn't put that in the underwriting information, they just 
said, we've sold a bunch of units and here's who bought them, and that's how they 
got the credit. So thafs sort of an example of the alternative financing. 

Now, the other way that he got financing was by not being an equity partner 
in the project, finding an equity partner and offering, you know, licensing or 
marketing arrangement where, you know, he was the, you know, the brand. 

But, you know, what I began to conclude was that the Trump brand is a 
mixed brand and that, you know, he may have had other ways of lining up buyer 
interests showing that he had buyer interest to his equity partners and telling them 
we've got lots of Russians who are going to buy these properties, and that's why 
we should do this project. 

And I think the Trump Hollywood is an example and the Sunny Isles Beach 
are some of the best domestic examples of that kind of interplay. 

MR. SCHIFF: And tell me about the Trump Hollywood project. That was an 
example of the latter or the former? Did they get the financing from what you could 
tell because they got a bunch of Russians to presale, or did they go to a 
bank and say these are our investors, or how did they go about that? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, eventually, I mean, they lost the project. It went 
under. I, can't - I'm not - I'm sure we did look at who the creditors were, who the 
lenders were. This is the project that Sergi Millian appears to have been involved 
in, and there's a picture of Jorge Perez, Donald Trump, and Sergi Millian. 

And he tells a story about meeting Donald Trump at the golf -- at a 
racetrack, drinking a bottle of Crystal with him, seems - he gave him some 




Crystal. And that was in the early phases of the project. So it was clear that 
Donald Trump - so the equity partner was the related group. 

It was clear that this Russian had been brought into this with Trump, and 
what you can surmise from that is that he's there to say there are buyers. We can 
bring you buyers for this property. And that’s what a developer needs to know is 
that he's got buyer interest. 

MR. SCH1FF: And how does it work? Let’s say Sergi Millian or someone 
else lines up the Russian buyers. The Russian buyers sign presale agreements. 
Trump can then get financing for the rest of the project. Do the buyers go through 
and buy the properties, or is that no longer necessary, once you’ve obtained the 
bank financing you can actually sell them to real people? 

MR. SIMPSON: So it’s fraud if they don't. I mean, you have to warrant to 
the lender that you've already sold X number of units. And there's supposed to 
be contracts, downpayments, all of that sort of thing. So in the case of Panama 
where the evidence is the most vivid, there's — the buyers were fake. I mean, 
they were real people. They just never paid. 

MR. SCHIFF: And you say the evidence is most vivid, is it - did this come 
out in Panama Papers? How do you know that this is the case? 

MR. SIMPSON: This -- it's in public records. I mean, I think there's media 
interest in this, and there's going to probably be more stories about it. But I've 
heard about it. It’s been -- there's lawsuits that we found during the election by 
some of the later buyers alleging that the earlier buyers, that it was a fraud, and 
describes marketing events at Mar-a-Lago with Trump and various Russians 
where, you know, it’s clear that Trump is working with Russians to sell these 
condos in Panama and some of the -- you know, the project, like all these projects, 




eventually went belly up, and -- although I think it did get built. 

Anyway, so these lawsuits were the original - were the source of the 
original allegations. And I believe there are lawsuits in Toronto with similar 
allegations and the guys connected to the Toronto project are Russian mafia too. 
And, in fact, there's Toronto-based Russian mafia guys who are involved in the 
Panama project. 

And in any event, so the origin of the allegations is defrauded buyers. The 
real chumps or the marks are the guys at the end of the process who come in 
thinking that they're going to be moving into a building that's already got all this, 
you know, financing and other tenants and it turns out that those people have 
walked away. 

MR. CASTRO: Could I ask a question, Adam? 


New York Times or in 

the press about Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump being looked at by the 
Manhattan DA, I think, because of the same principle that they were 
essentially - the idea that they were fabricating the percentage of the units that 
had been sold basically to hook in more buyers. Did you look at that project at 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, that was the Trump SoHo, and that project was 
riddled with fraud, but I had not heard that allegation prior to those stories. But it 
is, in fact - I mean, that's a good observation. I had the same observation, which 
was it does resemble the allegations from these other projects. 

MR. SCHIFF: You mentioned earlier that not everything that Christopher 
Steele found or came up with made it into the reports because there was certain 




things that either couldn't be verified or might be the subject of Russian 

Is there anything now, with the benefit of hindsight with the allegations that 
have become public, that would cause you now to think, well, actually, what he 
came up with that we excluded from the report may have been accurate after all? 

MR. SIMPSON: No. Actually, 1 mean, I'm -- what I think I was saying 
when you were out of the room was it would — it's a microscopic kind of thing. 
There's very little that we did that is actually in the dossier. You know, there 
are - I was trying to think of an example, and I had trouble coming up with one, of 
something that we discarded because we didn't believe it. 

MR. SCHIFF: And didn’t you, during the course of your work, uncover any 
information regarding a connection between Trump or those around him and 

MR. SIMPSON: Yes. I mean, you’ve seen some of the public reporting. 
We gradually --1 mean, this would be separate from the Steele stuff, but, you 
know, we gradually towards the end of the project became very interested in -- you 
know, Roger Stone bragged about having his contact. We tried to figure out who 
the contact was. 

We started going into who Stone was and who his relationships were with, 
and essentially the trail led to sort of international far right. And, you know, Brexit 
happened, and Nigel Farage became someone that we were very interested in, 
and I still think it's very interesting. 

And so I have formed my own opinions that went through — that there was a 
somewhat unacknowledged relationship between the Trump people and the UKIP 
people and that the path to WikiLeaks ran through that. And I still think that 





MR. SCHIFF: And when you talk about the connection between the Trump 
campaign and the Brexit campaign, is that a line you're drawing through 
Cambridge Analytica, or were there other lines you were drawing there? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, Bannon went over to the UK in or around 2011. 

And originally, he was trying to set up a sort of British tea party, which was an 
inopportune choice of 

MR. SCHIFF: The anti tea party. 

One minute. 

MR. SIMPSON: And so, you know, some of it - so there's — it really isn't, I 
don't think, that Cambridge is the nucleus. I think that it's there's some Bannon 
connections. I know there's - and there’s some other Bannon Stone associates, a 
guy named Theodore Roosevelt Malloch, who was - is an American who was 
living o ver there and associating with UKIP and, I believe, is a significant figure in 


So I don't -1 had had some run into Cambridge and Analytica previously, 
and I would - there was a lot of skepticism about whether they really were capable 
about doing anything or whether they were just selling snake oil, and that was 
certainly my view when I First heard about them years earlier. So I don’t view them 
as nucleus. The Mercers, I think are significant. 

MR. SCHIFF: And, I mean, were you able to find any factual links between 
the Mercers and Assange or WikiLeaks or Farage? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I mean, the things that we heard, which, you know, I 
think could be sorted out by an official inquiry are that Nigel Farage made a number 
of trips to New York and had a number of meetings - Nigel Farage and 




Air Bank had a number of trips to the U.S., and that they sort of ~ that there's been 
a misrepresentation of the length of that relationship and the extent of it. 

There's -• I've been told and have not confirmed that Nigel Farage had 
additional trips to the Ecuadoran Embassy than the one that's been in the papers 
and that he provided data to Julian Assange. 

MR. SCHIFF: What kind of data? 

MR. SCHIFF: Can we just get an answer to that. 
MR. SIMPSON: A thumb drive. 

MR. SCHIFF: Thumb drive. Thank you. 


Q Just a couple questions, Mr. Simpson. 

Did the DNC or the Hillary Clinton campaign for presidency ever direct 
Christopher Steele to discuss the contents of his dossier with the media that you're 
aware of? 

A I was the one that directed him to do that. 

Q Okay. When did you direct Christopher Steele to discuss the 
contents of his dossier with the media? 

A I think that there was — I believe it was late -- it was sometime in 
September or October. I hesitate to be too specific because it's a little blurry. 

Q Of 2016? 

A Yes, sir. 

Q Did you do that of your own volition, or did you do that at the direction 
of a client or another entity? 




A I want to be as helpful I can without getting into client communications. 
So I guess I would like to say generally, I mean - generally when 
reporters — when we have to deal with the press, we would inform our clients that 
we were doing -- you know, in any case if you're dealing with the press, it's 
incumbent on you to, you know, make sure your client knows that. 

Q Right So are you saying it's a particular client confidentiality that 
prevents you from asking - answering who, if anyone, directed you to have 
Christopher Steele go to the media with the dossier information? 

MR. LEVY: First, I'm not sure you characterized his testimony correctly; 
but second, he has been as helpful as he can be with this question without getting 
into confidential client communications. 

No, I understand. I'm just trying to look for which 
confidential client communication he's referring to, because certain clients have 
provided disclosures and relief from that confidentiality agreement. 

MR. LEVY: This client has not authorized Mr. Simpson to discuss 
confidential client communications. 

I: Okay. So this client would not be then Perkins Coie? 

MR. LEVY: Perkins Coie has not authorized Mr. Simpson to discuss client 

J This specific communication? 

MR. LEVY: Any. 

B Any. So their statements in - that the general counsel for 
Perkins Coie wrote releasing Fusion GPS from client confidentialities, are you 
aware of that? Are you - 

MR. LEVY: That letter releases Fusion GPS from no longer protecting the 




identity of the client. It does not release Fusion GPS from client communications. 

|: I understand. So if Perkins Coie were to at some point in 

the future provide such a disclaimer or a release, would you then be in a position 
to answer that question? 

MR. LEVY: We'd have to look at it and -- but if it released our client from 
confidentiality, we'd take that under advisement and talk to their counsel and -- 


MR. LEVY: I want to make sure we're not waiving other privileges that 
we've asserted in this investigation as well, including the First Amendment, but -- 


Q And my last question for you, Mr. Simpson, is why did you go to direct 
Mr. Steele to go to the media with the information in the Steele dossier? 

A Sure. Well, so there were two instances of this or rounds of it, and I 
think I was beginning to recount this earlier. In the - in whatever the first round 
was, I assume it was sometime in mid-September or early October, it was mainly 
about telling the press, a few high-level members of the national security press, 
and the, you know, top-level press that we had information that there was a 
Russian intelligence operation that the Russians were engaged in, you know, that 
this was more than just hacking, and that there was a major effort to interfere with 
the election, and that it allegedly involved the Trump Organization. 

And the reason for that, the motivation for that was mainly because I 
thought that this was historic and that it was something the press needed to 
investigate and know about and ask the Intelligence Community about because I 

wanted to expose it. 

But, you know, we were operating under the assumption at that time that 




Hillary Clinton was going to win the election and so there was no urgency to it. 

And there was an assumption on my part that nothing would be published about 
any of this any time likely before the election, and I wanted to tell them about it 

because that was when it was happening. 

But I didn't, you know - it was -- basically in a political campaign, you know, 
when you get past Labor Day people stop publishing stories that could be 
perceived as a late hit or an October surprise or some kind of a stunt. 

And so, you know, in a presidential campaign you're sort of winding down at 
that point. You know, all of the information that you needed to gather for debates 
or political ads or anything like that, it's all been gathered. 

And so — anyway, so we wanted people to know. And we were also of the 
view by that point -- we’d been doing the research for two-plus months - we were 
of the view that there was really something here, that this was really bad, and that 
there was some serious allegations that it wasn't just Russians. It was Russians 
working with Americans. 

So that was round one. Then -- and indeed, no one ran off and wrote a big 
story about how Russian - how a British spy is -- thinks that, you know, the 
Russians are working with the Trump people. 

There were, you know, a trickle of stories, you know, I guess more than a 
trickle, but there were some very limited stories about people associated with 
Trump having connections to the Russians. And I can remember specifically 
there being stories about Carter Page and his trip to Moscow and the fact that that 
was something that was of FBI interest, and that Carter Page stuff is something 
that we covered with the media. 

But anyway, so none of that made a dent in the sort of general coverage, 




and it didn’t bother me because I wasn't expecting any of it to really make a dent. 




[6:05 p.m.] 

MR. SIMPSON: Come the end of October, some extraordinary things 
started happening. The Russians — WikiLeaks releases John Podesta's emails, 
and then, you know, most extraordinary of all, James Comey sends a letter to 


Congress saying he is reopening the Hillary Clinton email investigation. And that 
was, I believe, around the 25th. And, you know, if you are me, you know, and you 
have been in politics and campaigns and investigations, and this is your whole 
world, and you have been doing it basically since you got out of college, you know, 
one of the things that you - that is really ingrained in you is the rules of 
Washington -- and when I say rules, I mean like regulations of the Justice 
Department about interfering v/ith an election. It is not something that you are just 
aware of as a technical requirement, it is something the people embrace, which is 
that law enforcement shouldn't interfere in elections by announcing investigations 
of people at the last minute. 

And so we were shocked, and I felt - I mean, I guess I was angry. But in 
any case, you know, the result of that was predictable, which is that, you know, it 
began to influence the election. And, so, we tried to decide how to respond to 
that. And when I say "we," I mean like me and my little, you know, company, and 
Chris and, you know --1 didn't have any dealings with Mrs. Clinton or any of these 
other people. They were dealing with -- that was their thing. But I was sitting on 
this piece of knowledge, which was that, in fact, the FBI was investigating the- 
Trump organization for possibly having illegal dealings with the Government of 
Russia. And you can imagine if you are me or Chris Steele and we have been 
sitting here working-- 

| and they seemed to be very seriously running a 




counterintelligence/espionage investigation of the Donald Trump organization, and 
all of a sudden they announce that they are reopening Hillary case, you know, 
you’re kind of, what's going on here? 

So at that point, I, of course, was really confused, and I would say Chris 
was a little scared, because he didn't -- he thought that - he didn’t really 
understand what was going on with the FBI. In any event, at that point I felt like 
the rules had just been thrown out and that Comey had violated the sort of one of 
the more sacrosanct policies, which is not announcing law enforcement activity in 
the closing days of an election. 

And so, we began talking to the press again about -- we decided that if 
James Comey wasn't going to tell people about this investigation that, you know, 
he had violated the rules, and we would only be fair if the world knew that both 
candidates were under FBI investigation. 


Q Which outlets in the press were you talking to? 

A I am not going to answer that. 

Q Okay. Do you know John Podesta? 

A I have known John since he was working in the Clinton administration. 

Q Had you met with Mr. Podesta in the fall in the election campaign 


A No. 

Q So you never met with Mr. Podesta in September or October or 
November of 2016? 

A No. 

Q Had you had any communications with Mr. Podesta from, say, May 




of 2016 through November of 2016 regarding the matters we are discussing 

A No. I don't think so. 

Q So have you ever exchanged or has he ever requested, he being John 
Podesta, information regarding the Steele dossier or its contents on behalf of the 
Hillary Clinton campaign from you or your company, Fusion GPS? 

MR. LEVY: Just to clarify your question, because it got fast, you are 
talking about during that same time period, May to November 2016? 

Q Let's go May through November 2016. 

A No. 

Q Any time before May that you ever communicated with Mr. Podesta 
about that information? 

A No. I think the -- as I say, I knew John when I was covering the 
Clinton scandals and he was in the White House working for Bill Clinton. And I 
saw him now and then on the subway after that, and I didn't see him or talk to him, 
or, to my recollection, have any other kind of communication with him in 2015 or 

Q So to the best of your memory, you never met with him or had any 
communications with him during those 2 years? 

A That's right. 

Q So earlier a moment ago you were discussing how after Comey sent 




this memo reopening the Clinton investigation, you said we had to decide how to 
respond. Who is "we" in that statement? 

A It’s mainly a reference to myself and to Chris. You know, it was 
mainly between Chris and myself. 

Q Anyone else? 

A You know, I am not going to get into client communications, but, you 
know, I was still working for a client at that time. 

Q Did you discuss with your client how to respond? 

MR. LEVY: I think that is confidential. 

MR. SIMPSON: I am not going to give you that. 

Q And you said that the response you decided on was to inform the 
press that both candidates were under FBI investigation? 

A Well, what I thought was appropriate was for -- to give the press 
enough information so that they could go to the FBI and ask them if both 
candidates were under investigation. So what we more specifically did was, you 
know, we told them that, you know, we had given this information to the FBI and 
that, you know, we thought the FBI was probably investigating, and that they 
should ask the FBI if, in fact, they were investigating. And so they did. So the 
FBI, it appears, told them they weren't investigating. 

Q Did you testify earlier, it was your opinion as a Washington veteran 
that you thought Mr. Comey's statement, or letter, might improperly or irregularly 
influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election? 

A I am sorry, could you repeat that? 

Q I believe you testified earlier, and I just wanted to confirm, that you 




thought Mr. Comey's letters to Congress and/or statements concerning the 
reopening of the Clinton investigation might improperly have an influence on the 
outcome of the 2016 election? 

A It's my understanding that -- it was my feeling at the time he had 
violated both the norms of our campaigns and Justice Department policy by 
disclosing or announcing or taking those kinds of investigative steps within 
2 v/eeks of Election Day. 

Q And one of the reasons those norms were in place or you thought his 
actions were improper, is that there was at least the very high potential for those 
actions to influence the 2016 election. Isn't that right? 

A Yes, it is. 

Q So by deciding what you were going to do in response once the, as 
you said, the rule book had been thrown out the window, was it also your purpose 
or intent to counterbalance Mr. Comey's actions by potentially influencing the 
outcome of the election? 

A Well, I guess I would put it a little differently. So, I mean, the first 
thing that happened when this FBI stuff came out was that we were totally 
shocked. And Chris was concerned that something was happening at the FBI 
that we didn't understand, and that there may be some political maneuvering or 
improper influence. And, so, we were very concerned that the information that we 
had about the Russians trying to interfere in the election was going to be covered 
up. And this was some really bad stuff. We were now in late October, and it was 
clear that there was a massive attack on our election system by the Kremlin. And 
that it was, you know, a crisis, and that, you know, so we felt that this needed to be 




And so it wasn't so much, you know, a case of, you know, tit for tat as that 
we didn't really understand what's happening, and it was really bad stuff that was 
happening, and if the press is going to be writing about all these investigations, we 
should expose this stuff. 

Q And was the purpose or intent of the exposure to potentially affect the 
outcome of the election? 

A It was to expose a sinister plot by Vladimir Putin, a hostile foreign 
power, to attempt to alter the outcome of an American Presidential election. And 
that was the goal. You know, and again, I mean, basically our behavior after the 
election was of the same basic character. At some point, it became about 
blowing the whistle on this. And I would say that was the point at which it was a 
lot bigger issue. And as an ex-journalist, I still have a little bit of that in my blood, 
and I wanted to expose it for the sake of letting people know what’s going on. 

Q And did you discuss that plan to expose this information with Perkins 
Coie, the Clinton campaign, or the DNC? 

A I am going to decline to answer that. 

MR. SCHIFF: Mr. Simpson, I want to ask you a very open-ended question, 
because a lot of the information has been very helpful, but I am concerned that we 
may not know the right questions to ask you. So let me ask it in a very general 
way. You know the parameters of our investigation. We are interested in any 
contacts between then-candidate Trump, his family, his campaign, and the 
Russians. We are particularly interested in any of the Russian active measures, 
any leverage the Russians may exert over the President or his team. 

You have itemized a number of things, including Russian money involved in 

transactions with Trump properties, and suspicious activity potentially between the 




campaign, Nigel Farage and Assange-Wikileaks. Are there other issues that came 
to your attention that are not contained in the Steele dossier that you 
think we ought to be aware of that you either were able to substantiate in part, or 
you were not able to fully investigate but you think that, in the exercise of due 
diligence, that we really need to? 

MR. SIMPSON: So I guess the first one that I think that we haven't 
covered at all, would be the Center for the National Interest and the people 
involved in the Center for the National Interest. And among other things - well, 
importantly Dimitri Simes is known in the Russian expat community as a 
suspected Russian agent. And I believe he is known to the FBI as a suspected 
Russian agent. And I think that you could develop more information in that area 
from talking to Russian intelligence defectors and people who come to this country 
and have been given refuge from Russian intelligence. 

There are a number of Russian defectors who, I think, maybe could speak 
to that. I think there are some records around that might reflect some of that. 

And I think that is - given their fundamental role in creating the Trump foreign 
policy, I think that is a really important area. I think talking to Russian intelligence 
defectors in general about what they think was going on and what they've heard is 
probably a useful thing to do. 

I think that the origins of the Manafort-Stone-Trump relationship is an 
interesting area. I have looked, spent a lot of time looking last year at Roger 
Stone - you know, Roger Stone made a joke at one point about how Paul 
Manafort had disappeared, and he was last seen like carting bags of cash onto 
Yanukovich's plane or something like that. You know, Roger Stone has done 
work in Ukraine. He did work in Ukraine around the same time as Manafort. 




And I think he has a little more knowledge of Manafort's Ukrainian activities. 
And they both — Stone was a protege of a Republican political fellow named Arthur 
Finkelstein, who hired him to work on the Nixon campaign. And Finkelstein was 
one of the first consultants to really appreciate how to target voters in a way that 
somewhat resembles the way the Trump campaign and the Russians did. And he 
spent many years - he worked -- Finkelstein worked with Stone and Manafort in 
Ukraine in or around 2005, 2006, for the same cast of bad guys. And later went 
off to Hungary to work for the pro-Russian prime minister there, Victor Orban, and 
went into business over there. And there is a lot of allegations coming out of the 
Hungarian expat community about all of that. And, so, I think that is an important 
area. That is one of the — you know, we've picked up that Hungary is inside the 
EU, and it's essentially -- you know, Orban is essentially a Putin puppet and the 
GRU has a big station there, and there is a lot of unexplained travel by various 
people. And we have heard a lot of rumors about that, and a lot of allegations 
since beginning of last year. 

MR. SCHIFF: And I mean this is obviously a public transcript, we know 
about Carter Page's travel there. Are there other individuals - 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, it was our information that Gorka had been there 
about three times. At least two of those he tried to keep low profile. I am told 
J.D. Gordon did, but I don't know - I just don’t know whether that is reliable. I 
guess this is transitioning into another area, if you are interested in looking at 
things, is, you know, the European travel of certain people. And I would include 
Jared and Ivanka in that. 

And there is a very puzzling sequence of events that we spent a lot of time 
looking at -- first of all, I will just back up and say, you know, travel records. My 




assumption is that, you know, the FBI or the Special Counsel, like one of their 
methodological first steps would be to get all the travel records for all these 
people, as they are relatively doable if you are in law enforcement. And I think 
that would tell you a lot. But there is a specific sequence of events that has 
intrigued us for a long time, where Cohen and Ivanka and Jared and Trump, and I 
can't remember whether Manafort’s in this mix too, are all in the Hamptons area in 
August, and Dmitry Rybolovlev's plane is somewhere nearby, and flies to Nice. 
And then most of these guys sort of come off -- fall off the radar and then, you 
know, I think it's the 12th of August, Rybolovlev's plane lands in Dubrovnik, and 
Jared and Ivanka surface in Dubrovnik. And I don't know how they got there or 
whether they got there on his plane. 

But those are things I have been interested in for a long time. The plane, 
you know, we have been told that Rybolovlev's boat was also nearby. There 
were all these other yachts nearby and that, you know, there had been rumors of 
meetings between Trump people and Russians on yachts off Dubrovnik. And the 
Rybolovlev jet then flies to Budapest from Dubrovnik. And I can't tell you whether 
it's meaningful or not, but there are certainly things I was interested in and still find 
unanswered and intriguing. I guess the same would -- again, I don't know what 
Mr. Cohen has told you, but his public statements about his whereabouts I found 

MR. SCHIFF: Did you find evidence that Mr. Cohen had been part of this 

MR. SIMPSON: Again, our abilities to do these things are pretty limited, 
but we can be creative. And we found, you know, his daughter's Instagram 
account had her hop-scotching around this general southern Europe area during 




some of this time. And [ haven't refreshed my memory about all of this, but, you 
know, we got the impression that he was with her for some of the time. And then, 
you know, given the specificity of the allegations in the second Prague memo 
about their meeting in Prague, I have been — you know, given the gravity of the 
allegation and the specificity of it, generally I have been waiting for - I mean, I 
would sit down -- if that allegation had been made about me, I would sit down with 
my lawyer and we would reconstruct my whereabouts, and we would look through 
credit card bills and airplane tickets and, you know, my phone records. And there 
is many, many ways to account for your whereabouts in modern life if you want to. 
And I haven't seen him put any of that stuff out. So I find that intriguing. 

MR. SCHIFF: And what other issues do you recommend that we look at? 

MR. SIMPSON: I think the history of the Agalarovs is important, and the 
role that Irakly Kaveladze played in the Trump Tower meeting is important. And I 
think that there is a lot to find out about Kaveladze. You know, I should add, as 
we have said publicly, I was not aware of the Trump Tower meeting, and no one 
told me about it before it, and no one told me about it after. But I have a little bit 
of knowledge of Kaveladze and a little bit of knowledge of the Agalarovs. 
Kaveladze surfaced in a previous money laundering investigation. I think there is 
more information about that money laundering investigation in the possession of 
the government than just the GAO report, and that Kaveladze has been working 
with the Agalarovs since the early '90s, and they have been involved in a lot of 
money laundering, and that some of it goes back to suspected KGB money 

So, I think that is a rich area. And I was as shocked as anyone to see, you 
know, these two matters intersect in the way they did. I nonetheless feel it's very 




important to get to the bottom of what was going on there. So I think there is a lot 
to look for there. 

Three minutes, sir. 

MR. SCHIFF: Any other areas that you haven’t discussed already that 
raise concerns for you that you were not able to finish in terms of your own 

MR. MUSE: Since you have 3 minutes, why don’t we take a little bit of a 
break, and then we might be a little more efficient. Is that okay? 

MR. SCHIFF: Sure. 


MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I did think of some things. 

MR. MUSE: So we are back on the record? 

MR. SCHIFF: Yes, back on the record. 

MR. SIMPSON: So, you know, I could probably think of other things, but I 
think one thing that is worth looking at is the relationships among people that are 
not known to be related, whether the Agalarovs know the Arifs, whether some of 
the other Russian oligarchs, whether they have social or business relationships, 
including that Roman Abramovich. And I think this question of the travel histories 
of Don Jr. and Ivanka, and whether they had other meetings with Russians is an 
area that is unexhausted. And specifically, the connections between the 
Ibramovichs and Ivanka and Jared is something that requires looking into, if it 
hasn't been. 

So those are kind of--1 mean, as I look at a lot of these guys, I see, you 
know, a Russian Central Asian organized crime nexus. So, I think the Arifs are in 
that category, and the Agalarovs are in that category, and I think they know each 




other. I think they go to each other's children’s weddings. And I think those 
weddings take place in Italy. 

So that is important. I think there is a lot of activity we saw around the 
island of St. Martin in the Caribbean, and a lot of Russian activity. President 
Trump has a property there he has been quietly trying to sell. And there might 
have been some meeting activity there. The Turkey-Russia connection I think is 
deeper than is generally understood. I think that the Turkey-Russia -1 think that 
the influence campaign that General Flynn got caught up in is reflective of that. 
And I think it's not been excavated. And I think that Roger Stone may have 
connections to that matter that are unexplored. 

MR. SCHIFF: Why do you say that? 

MR. SIMPSON: Things I heard from sources. I think Ted Malloch is an 
important person in this whole picture. And he may have had some role in all 
that. He is an interesting person who crosses over from Brexit, UKIP, Trump, and 
the Turkey-Russia issue. And then the last thing I would add is, you know, we 
haven't talked about Deutsche Bank at all. You know, I think they obviously know 
a fair bit. But they are obviously within your subpoena power, and I am assuming 
you probably already asked them to provide information. 

You are out of time, sir. 

MR. SCHIFF: Thank you. 


Q So this round I am going to attempt to keep my questions short, and 
would ask that you might be brief with your answers. I appreciate how fulsome 

you have been in response to our questions, but want to be respectful of 

everybody's times. So if we could get through some things quickly, and as 




necessary we can elaborate. Can you just briefly describe how you met individual 
Natalia Veselnitskaya or came to know her? 

A Sure. I think this is largely included in the previous answer, but I was 
retained by Baker Hostetler, and didn't know of her existence until they told me 
there was a lawyer for the Prevezon company, a Russian lawyer. And eventually, 
they mentioned her a few times, and eventually they mentioned her name. And at 
some point, you know, they introduced me to her. 

Q Do you recall when that was? 

A I don’t. I assume it was sometime in mid-2014. 

Q And I assume that you have seen reporting, or otherwise know that 
she attended what has become known as the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 

A Yes. 

Q And that she presented material to Trump associates regarding Bill 
Browder and the Magnitsky Act. Are you aware of that? 

A I am aware of that. 

MR. LEVY: Are you aware of the report? 

Q Are you aware that she presented material relating to Bill Browder and 
the Magnitsky Act during that meeting? 

A I have read that. To be clear, I didn't know about this meeting before 
it happened, and I didn't know about it after it happened. And I found out about it, 
I think, you know, within a day of it being disclosed in the New York Times. 
Someone called me and said you heard about this meeting? And I said no. So 
anyway, that was the first I had heard about it. That was in the spring of this year. 




I, of course, have read that information - some of the - one of the subjects was 
Browder. And I have been asked about it by another committee, and so I am 
familiar with that. 

Q Is the information that she provided during that meeting, did it 
incorporate information that you or Fusion GPS had come up with as part of your 
work on the President investigation? 

MR. LEVY: He has already told you he wasn't at the meeting and wasn't 
told about the meeting before or afterwards, so I don't know how he could answer 
that question. 

Mr. Levy, I understand that he has testified he doesn't know 

about the meeting before or afterwards, but that does not preclude his knowledge 
of what Ms. Veselnitskaya potentially presented from press reports or from talking 
to others after the fact. If he has no knowledge of what she presented or how it 
relates to his work, I am happy to - he is welcome to testify to that effect. 

A I have no knowledge of what transpired at that meeting. No one has 
ever told me what happened there. But I will say, you know, the Prevezon case 
was about the issues that she reportedly talked about. So that is all I can tell you. 

Q Have you seen the reporting, and particularly, the talking points or 
materials on this topic, recently published by The New York Times? 

MR. LEVY: You want to show a document to him? 

MR. SIMPSON: Is there a specific report that you are referring to? I 
mean they have done a lot of reporting on this. So I don't know how to answer 
your question. 


Q So there was a specific report within the past month or so stating that 




the material or the talking points that Veselnitskaya presented during this Trump 
Tower meeting had been socialized in some way with the Kremlin. And attached 
to that report was a set of documents purporting to be -- 

A Oh- 

Q - the talking points. 

MR. LEVY: There is a lot floating around on the Internet, and The New 
York Times has published a number of stories on this subject. And I just would 
ask, out of fairness to the witness, if there is a specific article or publication to 
which you are referring, if you could just produce it and show it to the witness so 
there is no confusion for the record. 

MR. GLABE: I am asking if he knows about the specific material. If he 
doesn't know about it, we can refresh his memory later. But I am just asking 
whether he knows about this specific material. 

MR. LEVY: I appreciate that. I just think that the question itself is not 
sufficiently precise, particularly if there is an actual newspaper story that we could 
show him. 

All right. We will do that on the next round. 

Q When was the last time that you saw Ms. Veselnitskaya in person prior 
to her meeting at Trump Tower on the afternoon of June 9th, 2016? 

A We were at a hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City. 

And I attended the hearing along with the rest of the Baker legal team. She was 

Q And so we includes her? 

A She was -- yes. 




Q Do you recall what time the hearing was? 

A No. I believe it was in the morning. 

Q And this is the morning of June 9th? 

A I think it was -- according to what what's been reported in the papers, if 
the Trump Tower meeting was on June 9th, yes, it was the same day. And yeah, 
it was a sort of obligatory event for me. I was part of the litigation team and, you 
know, former Attorney General Mukasey was arguing for the Prevezon side, and 
so we were all there. 

Q And what conversations did you have, if any, with Ms. Veselnitskaya 
while you were attending this hearing? 

A Mrs. Veselnitskaya did not speak much English. And so my 
conversations with her, every time I met her, were pretty limited. And I don't 
remember having any conversation other than pleasantries. 

Q And following the hearing, where did you go after that? 

AI had one other event that I know of was I was trying to help the law 
firm find a PR firm to handle trial PR. And I met with Weber Schandwick I think, is 
the PR firm. These trips to New York sort of blur in my mind. I may have had 
another meeting with another PR firm as well. I just don't remember. But in any 
case, the only thing I remember is one meeting with a PR firm at a hotel 
somewhere, and then it was my son's high school grad uation. It was an event for 
my son's high school graduation, so I went to the train station and came home. 

Q On June 9th? 

A That’s my recollection. 

Q So were you anywhere with Ms. Veselnitskaya that day after the court 




A Not that I recall. 

Q And do you recall the next time you saw her after the afternoon of 
June 9th? 

A It was a day or two later. I think it was --1 mean if June 9th was a 
Friday, I probably - maybe Saturday or Sunday, there was a social dinner that 
was organized by the partner for whom I had worked during my relationship with 
Baker Hostetler, Mark Cymrot, and it was at a restaurant called Barcelona, and 
there was a variety of people there. There were some people from journalism 
and books, and my wife and I, and Ms. Veselnitskaya was there with Rinat 
Akhmetshin and a couple other people. 

Q And this is in -- where is this? 

A This is in Washington. 

Q Okay. So a couple days after the weekend of -- . 

A It may have been a day after or two. I believe it was the same 

Q And did you have any conversations with Ms. Veselnitskaya, either 
directly or through an interpreter at this dinner? 

A Nothing I specifically recall. I recall that they were at the other end of 
the table from me. But you know, we had drinks before, and I might have said 
something to her. I just — it wouldn't stick in my mind. 

Q But it's your testimony that you didn't talk to her about the, what’s 
become known as the Trump Tower meeting before it occurred? 

A Neither before nor after. 

Q And you didn't, in fact, find out about that meeting until 2017? 

A That's correct. That is my testimony. 




Q And remind me of the date of the first Steele memo. 

A Somewhere around June 20,2016. Something like that. 

Q So by June 9th, this project that you were doing for - Mr. Steele had 
been engaged in your research on behalf of Perkins Coie? 

A I think so. But, I mean, I had been investigating Trump for like 
8 months. 

Q I mean, we have talked a lot about coincidences and interesting 
connections, but, I mean, it's quite something that you would have been 
investigating Trump for 8 months, and one of your colleagues from this other 
litigation who you were with shortly before and after the meeting had, in fact, met 
with Trump Jr. and other high ranking Trump associates on a related topic in the 
same time period. 

MR. LEVY: Is there a question? 

Q You mentioned briefings that you set up with Christopher Steele in 
September and October of 2016. In addition to kind of events that you did 
together, did you or anyone at Fusion independently discuss the dossier with 
journalists? Or the materials that became known as the dossier or are contained 
in the memorandum? 

A I understand the question. You know, it informed my discussions with 
reporters beginning, I think, in probably July. And I don't remember--1 don't 
remember specifics from the early part other than at the Democratic Convention 
they had Just released — WikiLeaks had released all the Debbie Wasserman 
Schultz material. And so it was plain from public evidence that there was a hack 




attack afoot. And based on things that the FBI had reportedly told the DNC, 
which were in The Washington Post, that it was the Russians, and that they were 
weaponizing the hack. They were not engaged in surveillance, they were 
engaged in an active measure. And so the question of what the Russians were 
up to was on everyone's lips, especially the investigative reporters that I deal with. 
And so I definitely - it definitely informed my discussions with people. 

Q Consistent with your -- the custom and practices you described earlier, 
did you preclear these meeting engagements with your client? 

A I didn't say that. I am not sure what you are referring to in terms of 
my previous statements. I think I have been fairly careful to not get into what I did 
and didn't say to my client. But what I think what I said, what I can say generally 
is that if I am talking to the press about a piece of research I am doing, you know, I 
would want to be — I would want my client -- my client would be aware of that. 

But I am also a professional, and, so, I don't need to clear every reporter 
conversation I have beforehand, or even report it afterwards with a client. 

Q In addition to these press engagements both with Chris Steele and 
those that you did independently, did you, Mr. Steele, or anyone at Fusion brief 
any lawmakers or congressional staff regarding the dossier material or Steele's 
findings during this period? 

A I don’t think so. No, I don't remember doing that. 

We will yield back to you guys. 

MR. SCHIFF: No more questions at this time. I defer to Ms. Speier. 

MS. SPEIER: Thank you, Mr. Simpson, for being here, and for your 
attitude. I would like to kind of focus on some of the real estate. At one point I 
think earlier you referred to that mansion in Florida as a derelict estate. Is that the 




word you used? 

MR. SIMPSON: I don't remember the exact words, but it had fallen into 

MS. SPEIER: So, it was purchased by Mr. Trump for $41 million and sold 
to Mr. Rybolovlev for $95 million. And since there had been few improvements 
made by then-developer Mr. Trump, what is your opinion, 1 guess, as to why that 
big hike in the sale price? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I originally dismissed this transaction as a runoff, or 
not relevant, because of my imperfect and incomplete understanding of the whole 
timeline. And I had never heard of Dmitry Rybolovlev. So it seemed like an 
absurd acquisition. But the explanation for why he overspent was that he was 
hiding money from his wife. And the depiction of him as a sort of reckless big 
spender was pretty thoroughly developed in the press. 

So, I mean this guy was spending money like a drunken sailor on all kinds 
of things, and people were ripping him off in art deals. So that was my original 
take on this. Also, when we first heard about it, it didn't fit with my timeline of 
when Trump seemed to have gotten deeply involved with the Russians. 

Later, as I understood more, I began to realize that it actually was in the 
sort of first trimester of the Trump-Russia relationship, in that it actually fit in pretty 
well with some of the early things that had happened. I also began to learn more 
about Dmitry Rybolovlev. And that changed my view. 

In particular, I didn't know in the early period that he was closely linked to 
Igor Sechin, and that, in fact, he was accused of essentially destroying an entire 

city environmentally with his potash mining operations, and was criminally 
accused, and managed to get out of it and walk out of Russia with billions of 




dollars with the apparent assistance of Sechin and Sechin's people. And 
subsequently, received a report from a Russian emigre who is familiar with these 
events that that was -- there were political or corruption aspects to that. 

So, as my understanding of what I think has been happening developed, I 
began to think, again, about all of this, and I am now very suspicious that he was 
deliberately overpaying. And, I mean, what we have seen over the last couple of 
years that, as sort of cynical and conspiracy minded as i am, I am still shocked by 
all kinds of things that have happened here, including the Trump Tower meeting. 
And what we have seen is that a number of oligarchs have left Russia in recent 
years who seem to still be doing the bidding of the Kremlin. And to some extent, 
they like to have an image as someone who is on the outs with the Kremlin, but 
when you look closely, they are not. And you know, when we looked at 
Rybolovlev's plane travel, you could see that he was going to Moscow all the time, 
and that all his legal problems went away, and that there was questions about 
whether he really did get ripped off in these art deals or whether he just said he 
got ripped off as a way of accounting for all the money that's missing. So I am 
now of the view that that transaction is suspicious. 

MS. SPEIER: And the additional $50-plus million that Donald Trump 
received was for what purpose? 

MR. SIMPSON: I don't know. I mean--you mean the profit from that? 

MS. SPEIER: Right. 

MR. SIMPSON: Trump just claimed it was one of his great business deals. 
He just claimed he talked him into paying double, which was odd, because the 
market was going south at that point. 

MS. SPEIER: You indicated that beyond the dossier and the Christopher 




Steele research, that you conducted your own research on Russia. And I think 
you have shared with us some of that. Is there other elements of your Russian 
research that would be helpful to us? 

MR. SIMPSON: One of the things, you know, that we worked on, I just 
saw a story coming in here sort of about financial transfers from Russia through 
Russian, you know, diplomatic entities, and how that was something that, you 
know, there have been SARs on. And you know, we investigated - so there was 
in one of the early memos, might even have been the first one, said "Money is 
being distributed in the United States through the auspices of pension payments." 
And you know, they are basically getting the money into the country and handing it 
out using fake pension payments. And this is like one of those things that I ran 
down as a way of evaluating the credibility of the dossier or of this memo. And so 
the question is, Well, do the Russians hand out lots of money in the United States 
through pension payments? And the answer is they do. And it's actually kind of 
interesting. I mean there is a ton, or many thousands of Russian emigres 
who - you know, it was a communist country, so everyone worked for the 
government, so the government has liabilities, pension liabilities in the U.S. that 
are big. 

And furthermore, there has been investigations by the Social Security 
Administration about those payments and about whether some Russian emigres 
are getting Social Security from both countries. And those are just ordinary fraud 
investigations whether the recipients are engaged in a form of welfare fraud. But 
in the course of all that, it lays out some of the operation of how this money 
moves. And that all depicted to me a perfect way of moving money in the United 
States that was largely untraceable, and protected by diplomatic privileges. 




So even in a sanctions environment, you can move this money in under 
color of pensions. So all of that was to me, and is, very interesting. And then we 
identified a woman in Florida, a lawyer whose name escapes me, who used to 
work for Gazprom, and seemed to have connections to Michael Cohen, who said 
she was a — had a legal, you know, some legal role with the Russian Embassy in 
Washington helping to distribute Russian pension payments. And, so, all that 
was interesting and curious, and I wish I had been able to follow up on it more. 

Other work that we did in the dossier that I think was really useful and is 
worth following up on, so we did a similar thing when we got the Carter Page 
information, which was, you know, gee, we will never--1 will never find a way to 
confirm whether he talked to Igor Sechin, but what was he doing in Moscow at this 
school meeting? And was he on the schedule in advance? Couldn’t find much 
indication that this had been long announced in advance. Seemed to be hastily 
arranged. Who is behind this school? Who are the oligarchs? That was 
interesting. There are some oligarchs that are involved in the school that show up 
in other aspects of this. 

And, you know, eventually after the election, because I was somewhat 
consumed with these matters, I began — I began, you know, I guess to back it up a 
little bit, when I left the Wall Street Journal, one of the reasons why I left the Wall 
Street Journal was because I wanted to write more stories about Russian 
influence in Washington, D.C., on both the Democrats and the Republicans. And 
I had written up a couple cases, the Curt Weldon case, some other cases, and I 
had talked to some sources, and everyone said the Russians are back, and they 
are buying influence in Washington left and right, and it's scary and crazy, and 
they are trying to bribe all these Congressmen. And so 1 wrote a bunch of stories 




about it. And eventually the Journal lost interest in that subject. And I was 
frustrated. And with the change of ownership - 

Anyway, that was where I left my journalism career. So hadn't paid much 
attention to it. And now, all of a sudden, all these issues that were at the end of 
my journalism career came back, and I became somewhat consumed with them 
again, and I began reading court cases involving Russian espionage in the United 

I went over the Anna Chapman case, the case of the 10 illegals. And an 
interesting aspect of that case is that one of the people who was targeted was 
Hillary Clinton's -- one of her big donors was — seemed to be the Russians' target 
in that case. And another aspect of the case was a guy who was trying to get a 
job at the New America Foundation. And it suggested that there was, you know, 
a pretty elaborate attempt by the Russians to infiltrate our softer target institutions. 

You know, instead of, you know, breaking into the CIA, you are breaking 
into, you know, places where, you know, an open society leaves open. 

So anyway, in the course of reading up on my espionage cases, I found a 
case involving a guy named Buryakov, Evgeny or Eugene, who worked for, I think, 
it was Sberbank and he was arrested as an illegal Russian intelligence agent. 

And then in the prosecution, they identified people that he was trying to recruit. 

And one of the guys fit the description of Carter Page. And so eventually, you 
know, a reporter asked Carter Page, Hey, is this you, and he said yes. And so, 
you know, I mean in terms of like things that have turned out to be accurate about 
the dossier, I mean like, okay, so this guy seems like a zero, but, in fact, you know, 

in espionage tradecraft, you know, you are not going to target, you know, 

someone with a good job and a stable family and a long work history, because 




they are going to tell you to get lost. But you are going to target someone who is 
greedy, lonely, ambitious. And he fit the picture. 

And it turned out that he, in fact, had been a long-time target of Russian 


intelligence and under investigation by U.S. counterintelligence. So, you know, 
that's a long way of saying I think there are other espionage and sanctions cases 

that shed light on the bigger operation. 

MS. SPE1ER: All right. Let me move onto another property, the Soho 
property. What do you know about Tamir Sapir? 

MR. SIMPSON: I used to know a lot. I don't remember. I think he is of 
Central Asian background. I believe he is deceased now. And I believe he is — I 
guess there is some inter-marriage. I can't remember how it is. But I remember 
something about weddings and them being socially connected. That's about all I 
remember. I am sort of thinking back to one of the other questions that 
Congressman Schiff asked about, things to look at. And it's kind of an 
uncomfortable — I don't know really how to put it, but there is a lot of — Putin 
seems to be very interested in the Jewish Diaspora. And there seems to be, 
especially, the sort of Orthodox or ultra religious or conservative, and there is a 
definitely something interesting to all that. Chabad, in particular, is a subject that 
is curious and interesting. 

And Putin essentially took over the Russian Jewish community and the 
leadership of the Russian Jewish community. And appears, for reasons I can’t 
fully explain to be -- this appears to be a very interesting route for the Russians. 
And again, I think there are many routes for the Russians. They use trade 
groups, they use ethnic association groups, and at least -- and they use religious 




The Orthodox church is also an arm of the Russian State now. And when I 
used to do terrorism reporting, the Mossad guys used to tell me about how the 
Russians were laundering money through the Orthodox church in Israel, and that it 
was intelligence operations. So - 

MS. SPEIER: So the extent to which they are funding persons within let’s 
say the Russian Orthodox church or funding the church, is the expectation then 
that those who are here in the United States, members of the Russian Orthodox 
church are doing something on behalf of Russia? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I think --1 mean the thing that I have looked at is 
more in Europe, but it's using the Orthodox church as a cover to move money and 

for operational cover reasons, to give people, agents jobs. A lot of the senior 
people in the church are ex-KGB, or maybe still KGB. And so - 

MS. SPEIER: And very religious, I guess. 

MR. SIMPSON: These are actually quite well documented. The other 
thing is the history of Russian espionage, a lot of the stuff they have been doing 
lately is really out of the old playbook. So from my background, as I don't have 
sort of any great investigative powers, so I read a lot. And a lot of what you read 
in the history of Soviet espionage is what you have been seeing lately. In any 
case, oh, and the classic one of course is Kompromat. So, you know, that 
obviously is something that harkens back. 

QHow about Mr. Mashkevich? 

P One minute, ma'am. 

MR. SIMPSON: He is interesting. He is another Central Asian organized 
crime figure who is extremely well known to international law enforcement, 
involved in a lot of money laundering activities, a lot of kleptocracy, comes out of 




the mining industry, and is big in Kazakhstan, a member of the trio, as they are 
called. And I believe that Moskovich (ph) also has connections to the Sapirs and 
the Arifs. 

MS. SPEIER: He was one of the financial backers evidently of Bayrock. 

MR. SIMPSON: Yes, that's right. 

MS. SPEIER: And somehow, then associated with Trump Soho, or not? 
MR. SIMPSON: Yes, absolutely. I think that that whole thing is - there is 

a lot left there. I don't know if you have ever asked Ivanka Trump what she was 
doing in Kazakhstan, but she was there. So was Don Jr., I believe. She talks 
about it in her book. She doesn't say what she was doing there, you but she says 
she was there. I think she mentions eating a cow stomach. 

Q So Mr. Simpson, I just handed you a New York Times article entitled 
Talking Points Brought to Trump Tower Meeting Were Shared With Kremlin from 
The New York Times. Do you recall reading or otherwise being familiar with this 

A So I read the article at the time. I didn't realize that this was 
appended to the article. Is this from the article? 

Q So in addition to the article, I have handed you a two-page memo that 
according to the article was a document provided by the office of Mr. Chaika, the 
Russian prosecutor, to an American Congressman in approximately April of 2016, 
paragraphs of which were also incorporated in the talking points that Ms. 
Veselnitskaya brought to the Trump Tower meeting. 

And particularly, with respect to this memo, if you have a chance to look it 




over, does it reflect or incorporate research that Fusion did? Does that two-page 
memo reflect or incorporate research that Fusion did in the Prevezon litigation? 

A i don't know for sure. Actually, someone sent me a memo that I think 
was in Russian, and it wasn’t this one. Yeah, like last week. Sorry. It was 
linked to a news article. Right. So, I have not studied this closely. And i 
certainly had no role in putting this together. And I didn't - wasn't at the meeting, 
and I wasn't aware of what transpired at the meeting, including what was 

Q So let's sort of take a - I understand that's your testimony. So take it 
one at a time. Fiave you seen this -- do you recall seeing this memo before? 

A I actually don't. Someone sent me one that was different, but - so 
there was an article in Foreign Policy recently where they said we've got the 
memo. And 1 remember looking at it, and I don't remember it being this one. 

And I did read this article. I am familiar with some of the information in here. 

Q Is it the same -- well, I believe you have already testified that your 
research connected to the Prevezon case involved Mr. Browder. Did it also 
involve researching the Ziff Brothers? 

A Yes. 

Q And did you share information in that connection with Ms. 

A Well, I would write memoranda for Baker Hofstetler. And yeah, I think 
I -- it ultimately -- ultimately would go to Ms. Veseinitskaya, in the litigation. 

Q Were you aware that she was sharing information on these topics with 
the Russian prosecutor general's office? 

A I don't know. I can tell you what I — what happened, which was that 




as Mr. Browder became a more central figure in the Prevezon litigation, and the 
question of whether he was, in fact, evading his taxes in Russia became an issue, 
we began to try to understand the Hermitage Fund and how it worked, and 
whether it paid taxes and who its clients were and its structure. So I conducted 
some research on these dozens of shell companies that were associated with the 
Hermitage Fund based in Cyprus. 

Q Was one of those Giggs Enterprises Limited? 

A I think so. 

Q Zhoda Limited? 

A Yep. 

Q Peninsular Heights Limited? 

A I think so. 

Q And so once you conducted that research, it made its way, you 
understood, to Ms. Veselnitskaya. Did you understand at the time that it was 
potentially making its way from her to the upper ranks of the Kremlin? 

A No. 

Q But it is fair to say, however, that the negative viewpoints expressed in 
this memo regarding Mr. Browder and Mr. Magnitsky are consistent with the 
Kremlin's own viewpoints on these matters? 

A They are consistent with the Kremlin's. They are not consistent with 
mine. Obviously, the Kremlin has very strong feelings on these things. I do not. 

I obviously think that Sergey Magnitsky was killed in prison by neglect, if not 
worse. And i think that William Browder's position that he holds now on Vladimir 
Putin is very similar to mine. And so -- 

Q Have you shared that opinion with Ms. Veselnitskaya? 




A That’s a funny question. But i don't - actually, my wife has shared 
those opinions with Ms. Veselnitskaya. I can't remember whether I said those 
things. In any event, I do remember doing this research. I thought it was good 
research. It was research for the lawsuit. I didn't think it was important research. 

I thought it was well done. We were able to figure out from a pretty big paper 
chase who the clients of this hedge fund were. And in fact, they potentially do 
have tax liability in Russia if the Hermitage Fund was cheating on their taxes in 
Russia. So that was the point of the research. 

Q But does it disturb or trouble you at all that this research was 
incorporated, used somehow, found its way in part to what you described earlier 
as a part of a Russian Government-directed operation? 

A I prepared this research in connection with an American lawsuit for an 
American law firm. 

Q I understand. 

A It all happens to be accurate. And so, you know, if someone used 
this research that they, you know, commissioned through a law firm for a 
legitimate legal purpose, took it and repurposed it in some other way, I can’t say as 
I am upset by that. I mean, I must say in my business, right, I am in the 
information business, so when people commission research from you, it becomes 
their property when you are finished with the research, when you give it to them. 

So if they decide to go and use it for something else, I mean, that's just beyond my 
control. So I will add that, you know, as someone who is not a fan of Vladimir 
Putin, I don't take any great --1 certainly am not happy to do anything that anyone 
would think was helping Vladimir Putin. And to the extent that this has subjected 
me to an unfair accusation that I was engaged in some kind of Kremlin operation, I 




find that very regrettable. 

Q You mentioned, I believe earlier, that in addition to Ms. Veselnitskaya, 
Mr. Akhmetshin was also at the dinner a couple days after this meeting? 

A That's my recollection. 




Q And had you met Mr. Akhmetshin before? 

A I have known Mr. Akhmetshin since I was a reporter at the Wall Street 

Q And other than this dinner, have you, Mr. Akhmetshin, and Ms. 
Veselnitskaya ever had any meetings together? 

A I don't know whether the three of us have met together specifically. I 
think there have been other meetings or maybe lunches or something 
that -- where we have all been present. At the time of the most of this case, she 
was just a lawyer from Russia. So I don't have a very clear memory of all the 
meetings and lunches and things. 

Q Did you understand her to be acting on behalf of the Russian 
Government or to have had a past relationship with the Russian Government? 

A I certainly didn't understand her to be acting on behalf of the Russian 
Government. And it was my impression that she was not a heavy hitter in 
Moscow or with the Kremlin. She seemed to be ambitious, but she didn't seem to 
be, you know, carrying the Kremlin stripes. I just remember she was introduced 
to me as someone who had previously been a government lawyer, and described 
to me by the Baker lawyers as actually a very good lawyer who seemed to really 
have a strong command of facts. And in my dealings with her, that turned out to 
be true. I mean she was able to produce a lot of records on these criminal cases 
that we were interested in. 

Q Did Mr. Akhmetshin work with you on the Prevezon litigation? 

A I mean we both worked on the same case, and I had occasion to deal 




with him. But he was brought in at a much later date. For most of the case it 
was just litigation, and he had no role. 

Q Have you worked with him on other matters? 

A I don't --1 mean we have never done business together. 

Q So you have never paid him or — 

A Not that I can think of. 

Q Who besides yourself -- who at Fusion besides yourself worked on 
both the Prevezon project for Baker Hofstetler and the dossier research for 
Perkins Coie? 

A I mean I am not sure anyone fits that precise description. It is a small 
company, so there may have been some people who had some kind of tangential 
connection to both matters. I just want to add that we have had a lot of 
harassment and security concerns, particularly very lately. 

And so if you want to - I am not sure how to navigate this. I will try to 
answer your questions, but I am also a little concerned about some of my staff are 
younger. Some of them have young children. So I am a little uncomfortable 
getting into too much of that kind of thing. 

Q Okay. Were there individuals besides yourself who either worked for 
Fusion or on behalf of Fusion worked on both the Prevezon project and the 
research for Perkins Coie? 

A I mean there is one in particular who did some work on both cases as 
a subcontractor, I actually think within my staff there is not much overlap. We 
have a long-standing relationship with a subcontractor named Ed Baumgartner 
who has a degree in Russian from Vassar, I think. And I don't know if you would 
call him a linguist, he is not a translator, but he works for us on Russian things 




involving the Russian language. 

So I don't read or speak Russian. So we retained Ed to — originally in the 
Prevezon case to do some interviews in Moscow, I think, and retrieve some 
records from Russia. And other Russian language-related tasks as part of the 
litigation and discovery process. 

Q So Mr. Baumgartner went to Russia on your behalf in the Prevezon 

A With the lawyers, yes. 

Q And he worked on the Perkins Coie matter as well? 

A Eventually. So by the spring of 2016 the Prevezon thing was on hold, 
and basically focused on this appellate hearing, which didn't involve a lot of Russia 
stuff. And then it basically everything got stayed until the decision was - anyway, 
in any event, I don't recall Edward working on - I recall him working on Prevezon 
and not on the other matter. There came a time when the Prevezon matter was 
less active and we had a need for more work on the other matter. And I 
specifically remember assigning him to do work in the summer or fall of 2016 on 
Michael Cohen's business connections to Russia and Ukraine and his 
father-in-law's background in Russia. And so he worked on both. And I think 
Edward might have also worked on some Manafort stuff, although I am less clear 
on that. 

Q Did he travel to Russia on your or Fusion's behalf in connection with 
the Trump research? 

A Did he travel -- no. Not that I know of. 

MR. SCHIFF: Ms. Speier? 

MS. SPEIER: There has been many reports on the Bank of Cyprus and 




the use by Russian oligarchs of that bank to launder money through it and the role 
Wilbur Ross played in that. Do you have any information on that? 

MR. SIMPSON: Not really. I mean Rybolovlev was also, you know, a 
figure at the Bank of Cyprus. And some Paul Manafort shell company accounts 
wound up I think at the Bank of Cyprus. So there is definitely some overlap. But 
I couldn't tell you whether - I don't have an opinion on whether it's significant. 

MS. SPEIER: Okay. There was a report that — you referenced earlier 
about how Donald Trump worked with the Italian Mafia in the 90s I think, and then 
in the 2000s it appears he was working with the Russian Mafia. That was what 
you testified to earlier today. 

MR. SIMPSON: That's correct. 

MS. SPEIER: At Trump Tower in New York City, the New York Police 
arrested 29 suspects who were allegedly running gambling rings and money 
laundering out of two condos, one of which occupied an entire floor in Trump 
Tower. One of the bosses that I think you mentioned earlier, Tokhtakhovno was the 
only target that slipped away, and then was seen later with Donald Trump in a VIP 
section of the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow. Do you know anything 

more about that Mafia organization operating out of Trump Tower? 

MR. SIMPSON: I mean I am trying to summon it from my memory. We 
spent a lot of time looking at this. I mean there was another guy - I don't 
remember anything that I think is notable that would be useful for you. 

MS. SPEIER: The investment in the Trump International Hotel and Tower in 
Toronto. It appears that Mr. Trump's original partner was Leib Waldman, who was a 
fugitive who fled to Toronto from the United States after pleading guilty to 
bankruptcy fraud and embezzlement in 1995. The Ritz Carlton, which had 




originally been named as the hotel operator, then abandoned the project after 
Waldman's status was revealed. 

Mr. Trump's other partners included a man who illegally converted a New 
York factory to loss only to have the city order all his tenants evicted to protect 
them from hazardous conditions. Another partner owned a nursing home 
company which was cut off from Federal funds due to concerns that the residents' 
safety was at risks . . Alex Schnaider, a Russian-born Canadian national, became 
the principal developer. Schnaider had no previous hotel or condo development 
experience. His most apparent qualification seemed to be that he had made a lot of 
money quickly. 

Financing came from an Austrian bank with no apparent experience in 
Canadian development, and which had been accused of acting as a conduit for 
Russian money laundering. Schnaider made misleading statements about the 
project, and ultimately the project failed and went through bankruptcy. The new 
buyer removed Mr. Trump's name from the project. What do you know about that? 

A Schnaider (ph) is probably the most interesting of those characters. His 
father-in-law is a very important figure in the history of the KGB-Mafia alliance ..He 
is named Boris Birshtein. Boris is connected to Mr. Moskovich. And all these 
people know each other. And they are all connected in oneway or another to the 
Russian Mafia, and some of them are connected to the intelligence services. 

These guys in particular, I believe, if I am remembering things correctly, have 
connections to the Solntsevo Brotherhood, which is the dominant Mafia family. 

AndBeerstein was the manager of the KGB's offshore funds after the 
collapse of the Soviet Union, and is well known in European law enforcement for 




his activities. And he is known to Belgian law enforcement, French, and crosses 
paths with Moskovich on a lot of this stuff. So we are talking about the same 
crowd. Raiffeisen Bank was during that period the main service bank for the top 
level Russian cormption and organized crime activity. 

So I wrote a lot about Raiffeisen in those days because they were 
laundering the money from the Mafia gas trading scheme that Putin was running 
between Ukraine and Russia. And when the Mogilevich Dmytro Firtash network 
was setting up their finance role and corporate operations to siphon 
money off the gas trade, they did it with Raiffeisen. And they came up in 
several other cases, and they were the go to bank for top level Russian dirty stuff. 

In regard to all that, and again going back to your earlier question, I think 
that there is a lot of information to be had from Canadian law enforcement and 
from Belgian law enforcement about some of these characters. I think you they 
know pretty well who these guys are, and they have been looking at them for a 
long time. 

MS. SPEIER: Okay. What is the interest of Russia with the National Rifle 

MR. SIMPSON: I think that most of what we have found is pretty much out 
there now. You know, it's been said by others, but, you know, what eventually - it 
appears the Russians, you know, infiltrated the NRA. And there is more than one 
explanation for why. But I would say broadly speaking, it appears that the 
Russian operation was designed to infiltrate conservative organizations. And they 
targeted various conservative organizations, religious and otherwise, and they 
seem to have made a very concerted effort to get in with the NRA. 

And so there is a Russian banker-slash-Duma member-slash-Mafia leader 




named Alexander Torshin who is a life member of the NRA. And we spent a lot of 
time investigating Mr. Torshin. And he is well known to Spanish law enforcement 
for money laundering activity, and you have probably seen the press articles. And I 
think the Spanish files on him should be available to you. And he, as you know, 
was supposed to have a meeting with President Trump after the inauguration. And 
somebody noticed that there had been some stories about him that weren't pretty 

So he is one of the more important figures, but, you know, another woman 
with whom he was working, Maria Butina, also was a big Trump fan in Russia, and 
then suddenly showed up here and started hanging around the Trump transition 
after the election and rented an apartment and enrolled herself at AU, which I 
assume gets you a visa. 

MS. SPEIER: She rented an apartment where? 

MR. SIMPSON: AU Park in Tenleytown. Went to American University 
and rented an apartment up there. I think she is suspicious. I guess the last 
thing I will say on this is that we just started seeing this stuff when all the other 
Russia stuff started bubbling up. And the thing I found, you know, the most 

absurd about this is that, you know, Vladimir Putin is pot in favor of universal gun 
ownership for Russians. And so ifs all a big charade, basically. 

MS. SPEIER: You said there were other conservative groups. Are there 
other conservative groups in the United States that they have infiltrated to your 

MR. SIMPSON: I think there's been - we have done some research on 
some religious groups having relationships with the Russians, having, developing, 
and pursuing relationships with various religious groups. The names of them 




escape my mind. But there has been a lot of that. And then there has been the 
independence movements, California independence, Texas independence. You 
know, it's a big operation. 

Five minutes, ma'am' 

MS. SPEIER: You said that Mr. Steele provided you information after the 
election as well. So it wasn’t in the dossier? 

MR. SIMPSON: It actually was in what’s known as the dossier. It’s just it 
came in after the election and we weren't being paid for it. And that's been a 
subject of litigation. Some of that stuff led to a lawsuit. But in any event, you 
know, yes. So in the period immediately after the election, Chris had a source 
network and, you know, some of the sources continued providing information for a 
little while. It's just, you know, when you set something up it kind of takes a while 
to taper off. So we received some new alarming stuff about this Prague meeting 
that came in after the election. 

MS. SPEIER: And it appears that one of the sources was mysteriously 


MR. SIMPSON: That's not my information. I mean there was a series of 
episodes where people were arrested or died mysteriously that came shortly after 
the disclosure of the existence of this information. And I do believe there was a 
bit of an old fashioned purge. 

And I think that - but to my knowledge, it wasn't anyone that helped us. I 
think it was more likely people who were taking the opportunity to settle scores or 
were falsely accused, as often, you know, just like in the old days, and/or were 
sources of the U.S. Intelligence Community, not us. 

MS. SPEIER: In researching Donald Trump's finances, and the fact that 




he was, you know, financially underwater, it seems in the mid-2000s, how much of 
his income was coming purely from naming rights? Have you ever tried to figure 
that out? 

MR. SIMPSON: No. Of course, you know, getting reliable information 
about his finances was pretty hard. But I think it was - I mean I think that sort of 
non-equity revenues was a big part of it. I also think that, you know, a lot of his 
income comes from trusts and things that his father set up, and that he doesn’t 
actually make that much money, you know, in terms of profits from his own 
activities. He still funds much of his -- from, you know, assets that were acquired 
by his father. 

MS. SPEIER: Ivana Trump, did she have any involvement in any of this? 

MR. SIMPSON: Not to my knowledge. But we have looked at the Czech 

issue, and, you know, Ivanka and Don Jr. speak a little bit of Czech, spent 
summers in the Czech countryside. And we examined, you know, whether that 
had any connection to the allegations of a Prague meeting. But other than that, I 
mean we have looked at -- her continuing involvement with the whole Trump 
organization is something we thought was interesting and looked at. But beyond 
that, I don't remember. 

MR. SCHIFF: I have a few more questions. But I will hand back. 

Q I am pleased to report I believe this will be our last round. 

So I believe it is your testimony that you continued to receive information 
from Mr. Steele, but were not -- after the election, but were no longer being paid 
for that. Is that correct? 




A Yes. I think what I was specifically talking about was the --1 think it's 
the last memo or one or two, whatever is at the very end of the collection known 
as the dossier was not paid for and not part of any engagement. 

Q Now, I infer from your sort of recollection of all these issues, as well as 
from your use of the present tense, that you remain active in researching these 
issues. Is that correct? 

A Well, I remain interested in all of these issues. What I do in terms of 
my other work is not something I am in a position to talk about. 

Q So after you are no longer being paid by Perkins Coie and then there 
is a time where you received information but weren't being paid, did you then 
resume engagements with respect to the issues? 

A I am not going to get into any of my current work, but, you know, I still 
run my company and we still have, you know, lots of business. 

Q Does any of that business relate to the issues that we discussed 


A I am not going to answer that. 

Q As I am sure you are aware, what's become known as the dossier was 
published on January 10th of 2017,1 believe, by Buzzfeed. I believe it was your 
testimony earlier that you did not - or Fusion did not provide the dossier to 
Buzzfeed. Is that correct? 

A That's correct. 

Q Do you know who did provide the dossier to Buzzfeed? 

A No. I have my suspicions, but they are just guesses. 

Q I am suspecting Mr. Levy is not going to entertain - allow us to 

entertain those guesses. 




MR. LEVY: I am not the witness, but generally speaking it's not good to 

MR. SIMPSON: I think what I would like to say, to be clear to everybody, 
is that we treated this information with a great deal of care. And we did that for a 
lot of different reasons, but among other things, because we thought this was a 
real national security issue, and because we thought that if it was just put out there 
in the way it was put out that people could get hurt and that people literally risked 
their lives to tell us some of this stuff, and that there was a lot of security issues 
around it. So I was very upset when it was published. 

Q Prior to the publication on January 10th, how many journalists would 
you estimate that you talked to either with Mr. Steele or separately related to this 

A I mean again I would be guessing. 

Q In this case I am asking for an estimate based on your best 

A I am not going to guess, but I will say that again, the depiction of this 
document as having been peddled around town, it wasn't peddled around town by 
me. And if someone was peddling it, it was without my knowledge and against 
my wishes. And to the extent that we discussed some of the information in the 
dossier, I would say it was, you know, a relatively small number of reporters. 

Q Would you estimate it as more or less than 10? 

A I mean it's really hard for me to guess, but you know, it's a low number 

like that. 

Q You mentioned that you felt this information had sort of national 




security significance. You mentioned how Mr. Steele proceeded with respect to 
this information. Did you at any time approach the FBI directly regarding this 
information or your findings? 

MR. LEVY: By the way, he has testified for over -- nearly 6 hours, so he 
said a lot more than that, but you can answer the question. 

MR. SIMPSON: I didn't approach the FBI. 


Q Are you aware of anyone who did on Fusion’s or Perkins Coie's 

A Beyond Chris Steele? 

Q Yes, beyond Chris Steele. 

A No. 

Q So we appreciate the opportunity to get your voluntary testimony 
today. We also have sought document production. Are you prepared to 
voluntarily provide documents that are responsive to the subpoena? Or I am 
sorry, to our request? 

MR. LEVY: You have our response to the subpoena for documents. You 
also have knowledge that some of our position is now the subject of pending 
litigation about which we will have a hearing tomorrow. 

: No. Well, let me clarify. We issued a voluntary request 

followed by a subpoena. The subpoena has now been lifted. Mr. Simpson is 
testifying here voluntarily. Having lifted the subpoena, we are now back to the 
voluntary phase of your testimony. So the question is with respect to the request 
to Fusion -- or to Mr. Simpson, is he prepared to voluntarily provide documents 
relevant to this committee's investigation? 




MR. LEVY: We have to stand on the same privileges that we already 
have. We will take the request back and evaluate it. 

So is your answer no. see our letter of October 16th, or you 

will consider the request? 

MR. LEVY: It is please look at our letter from October 16, and we will take 
it back. 

But I am a bit confused, because your letter of October 16 

also stated numerous reasons why Mr. Simpson and his colleagues were not 
prepared to testify voluntarily. He has now testified voluntarily and been quite, as 
you pointed out, quite fulsome and extensive in his remarks, which we appreciate. 

So to the extent that the letter of October 16th is no longer sort of current 
with respect to his testimony since he has now provided testimony voluntarily, how 
is it that the arguments in that letter are relevant or attain with respect to the 
document production? 

MR. LEVY: I don't know that we need to go through this back and forth, 
quite frankly, but we are very pleased that the committee was able to reach the 
agreement that we had asked for on October 3rd that Mr. Nunes rejected in a day. 
It's the same agreement that we reached with the two other committees 
investigating the same subject matter area. We are glad that we have gotten to 
this point. 

Obviously, the agreement that we reached came through some careful 
discussion between both the majority and the minority members of this committee 
and counsel for Mr. Simpson. We appreciate that the subpoena has now been 
lifted. But the privileges are the privileges. They are legal claims. We have 
asserted them. They are in the letter. 




So is it your position that the privileges asserted in the letter 
preclude any production of any documents so that we can advise our members 

MR. LEVY: As I said, I think it would be helpful if we took the request 
back, discussed it among ourselves. Now that the subpoena has been lifted it's a 
new day. That said, we are not waiving any of the privileges that we have 
asserted in the letter. 

I Understood. 

And also pursuant toj 

line of questioning, v/ill Mr. 

Simpson provide his work email address to this committee? 

MR. LEVY: Off the record. Meaning not on the transcript, but we can give 
it to you. 

Right. That's fine. If you as his counsel can just send it to 

the committee. 

MR. LEVY: We can do that. 

I: Thank you. 

MR. LEVY: And if he could do so without waiving any objections or 

Understood. Thank you very much. One moment. Sorry, 
just two more lines of questioning, Mr. Simpson. 

[Discussion off the record.] 


Q Mr. Simpson, did you or Fusion GPS ever conduct any sort of 
research during the 2016 Presidential election cycle on then-candidate Hillary 




A I guess it depends on how you define the cycle. 

Q I will help you. From January 1, 2015 through the election. 

A I don't specifically remember, but what I can say is that the Clinton 
Foundation and related issues has come up in my work a lot. And I can't 
remember when the last time was. So it's hard to be categorical. 

Q I guess I can narrow it down a little more for you. Were you tasked by 
anyone or sought out by any company, agency, individual to conduct 
research -- without naming those individuals -- to conduct the research on 
then-candidate Hillary Clinton? 

A Yeah. I think we agreed to talk to you about these two matters that 
you rightly are interested in. And I have tried to be as helpful as possible. So 
that would be not something that I am prepared to talk about. I will say that I have 
gotten journalistic inquiries about this subject, and I have tried to be helpful to 
reporters about this subject. 

Obviously, at some point, you know, that became a conflict of interest. But 
it is something that I just know a fair bit about because of all the work that we have 
done over the years. 

Q All right. Just so I am clear, I think our agreement, and Mr. Levy can 
correct me if I am wrong, we are investigating the 2016 election campaign cycle, 
irrespective of party. So that’s why my question was directed in that fashion. 

MR. LEVY: Let me just take a 10-second break to confer with Mr. 


i ; Sure. Go ahead. 

MR. SCHIFF: And I want to specify too that while the scope of our 
investigation is into the Russian active measures campaign, as well as 




connections between the Trump campaign - or either campaign and the 
Russians, some things that are beyond the scope of that are not what we are 
asking about. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

MR. SIMPSON: No one hired me to investigate Hillary Clinton in 2015 or 
2016. What did happen is that issues about Hillary Clinton came up in other 
investigations, and I can't remember the specifics, and I just remember they came 
up. A lot of times when we have a client come to us because of some business 
matter that is connected to politics or policy in Washington, the question of 
whether there was improper influence is part of the research. And I remember 
issues about policy, foreign policy coming up in other cases where it looked 
like - and in fact there was -- 

I am a little tired, but I think the question of whether people exerted 
influence through the Clinton Foundation was part of some business investigation 
that we were doing. She didn't come up in Prevezon, the nuclear stuff. The 
nuclear stuff had come up over the years, and it’s something I know little about. 

Q Lastly, you brought up the Clinton Foundation. Is there any of the 
work conducted by you or Fusion GPS relevant to the Clinton Foundation related 
to our investigation, the parameters we have described? Can you shed some 
light on that? 

A No. I mean I would tell you if it did. Not that I can think of. 

Q Sorry. And last question. Did you similarly along the lines of the 
Democratic side, were you hired, without naming the entities, were you retained, 
you or Fusion GPS, to conduct or find research on any of the other 16 Republican 




candidates in the field? 

MR. LEVY: I am sorry, can you repeat that question? 


Q Sure. Were you or Fusion GPS retained, without naming or 
identifying the clients, to conduct research on any of the other 16 Republican 
candidates in the 2016 election cycle? 

A That question, in the way you phrased it, has refreshed my memory, 
and I was - I remember we did work on Ted Cruz. And I think it was part of the 
Beacon matter. And it was a long while ago in this whole thing. And I just didn't 
remember it, but now I remember we looked at some Cruz-related stuff. 

Q Any of the other candidates, of the other 16 candidates? 

A I don't remember. But it was, you know, it was a while ago. I just 
don't recall. 

Q Fair enough. If you do remember, would you just let your counsel 
know so he could provide the appropriate documentation to us? 

A Sure. 

Thanks very much. Scott, do you have anything? Over to 


Thank you. 

MR. SCHIFF: I just have a few more questions. I think we are almost at 
the end. First of all, before I forget, thank you for your testimony today and all of 
your cooperation. It has been I think very helpful to all of us. 

On the document issue, we are not in the loop for the most part on the 
litigation. That's being handled by the majority without much not only input, but 
knowledge of the minority. 




Mr. Schiff? 

MR. SCHIFF: Yeah. 

I apologize for interrupting, but I just want to clarify, happy to 

discuss that issue, but I just want to clarify in reference to the earlier comments 
that Mr. Levy made that when I was asking about documents, I was asking about 
our document request to Fusion and to Mr. Simpson separate and apart from any 
document request for banking records or anything else. 

MR. SCHIFF: Yeah. You know, as I was saying, we are not that privy to 
what the litigation is over, what documents, what the scope of that is. And I don't 
know how, therefore, that bleeds over into the document request here. If there 
are documents within the scope of what we have been asking about that you are 
able to provide, we would encourage you to do it. 

But again, because I don’t understand the litigation, I can't speak to how 
that may influence what the court may decide your obligation, your privileges are 
vis-a-vis other documents. So I can't speak to that. 

So a few final questions. I want to make sure I understand this correctly. 
Your firm is retained by Prevezon for assistance in the litigation. Is that right? I 
am sorry, by Baker Hostetler. Is that right? 

MR. SIMPSON: Correct. 

MR. SCHIFF: Baker Hostetler represents Prevezon. 

MR. SIMPSON: Correct. 

MR. SCHIFF: Veselnitskaya is a Russian attorney for Prevezon. 

MR. SIMPSON: Correct. 

MR. SCHIFF: It sounds like former Attorney General Mukasey also was an 
attorney on behalf of Prevezon. 




MR. SIMPSON: He was an appellate attorney. 

MR. SCHIFF: So you didn't work directly for Veselnitskaya. You worked 
for Baker Hofstetler. 

MR. SIMPSON: That's right. 1 have a long-standing relationship with 
Baker Hofstetler, covering a variety of cases. Only this one has anything to do 
with Russia. 

MR. SCHIFF: So the work that you compiled you compiled for Baker 
Hofstetler for use in the Prevezon case. 

MR. SIMPSON: That’s correct. 

MR. SCHIFF: What Ms. Veselnitskaya may have done with any 
information produced in that litigation, would she have shared that information with 

MR. SIMPSON: But she did say to me at one 
point that she thought the Ziff Brothers information was important. And I didn't 
really understand what she was talking about. It didn't seem that important to me. 

MR. SCHIFF: Are you aware of any connections that Veselnitskaya may 
or may not have with Russian intelligence? 


MR. SCHIFF: It was reported in the emails setting up the Trump Jr., 

Trump Tower meeting that this had been arranged by Mr. Agalarov, Aras 
Agalarov, and Emin as well. There was a reference to information obtained from 
Mr. Chaika, I think he was referred to as the crown prosecutor. Are you aware of 
any relationship between Ms. Veselnitskaya and Mr. Chaika? 

MR. SIMPSON: I have read about that in the newspaper. I don't believe 
she ever told me that she had a relationship with him. I mean first of all, we do 




everything through translators, and so we wouldn't have very fulsome exchanges. 
But I believe that she may have alluded at times to giving information to the 
government for purposes of tax law enforcement. 

And to the extent that she made references to, you know - it was in 
connection with -- at least I understood it to be in connection with some kind of a 
tax enforcement action to recover taxes, unpaid taxes. And I can't remember 
whether she mentioned having any relationship with the chief prosecutor. 

MR. SCHIFF: But she did mention she had some relationship with the 
government, at least as far as providing tax information was concerned? 

MR. SIMPSON: Right. She didn't say she was a government agent, she 
didn't say she worked for the intelligence services, she didn't say any of that. All 
she said was something about this information is good because it has to do with 
the unpaid taxes. 

MR. SCHIFF: So if she was doing work for the intelligence agencies, she 
wouldn't confide that in you? 

MR. SIMPSON: No, that’s true. 

MR. SCHIFF: And would it be your practice to discuss with one client work 
you are doing for another client? 


MR. SCHIFF: So the work you were employing Mr. Steele to do would not 
be something you would have shared with Ms. Veselnitskaya? 

MR. SIMPSON: I didn't share it with most of my employees. Yes, to 
answer you, generally speaking we compartmentalize things, both like a law firm 
would, and in running an intelligence operation you would too. 

So if we are — so we don't tell one subcontractor what another 




subcontractor is doing. We don't tell our subs who our clients are. And we 
certainly don't tell one client.what we are doing with another client. 

MR. SCHIFF: And Ms. Veselnitskaya never fed you information that made 
it into the materials that you were providing your Perkins Coie client? 

MR. SIMPSON: No. In fact, the only information I even remember get 
getting from Ms. Veselnitskaya was the criminal case extortion case files in 2014. 
And they didn’t even come to me, they went to Baker Hofstetler, and they went 
into the, you know, e-discovery program. And I just had access to the translated 

MR. SCHIFF: The reason I ask this question is, and you probably have 
seen this, there is a conspiracy theory that the Russians were, either through Ms. 
Veselnitskaya or else ways, feeding you misinformation to go into the dossier to 
spur an FBI investigation as part of a Russian active measures campaign. Is 
there any truth to that theory that you can see? 

MR. SIMPSON: There is no truth to that theory to my mind. I would 
certainly agree with the observation that for these matters to have intersected in 
the way they did is, you know, remarkable. And it caught me totally by surprise, 
and I have spent a lot of time thinking about what it means, if it means anything. 

And as best as I can figure, the Russians were up to a lot of stuff, and I 
knew only about some of it. And I am one of a relatively small number of people 
who does a lot of work in these areas. And so the fact that I ended up, you know, 
having two connections to this stuff is not shocking to me because, as I say, the 
sort of Russia field is not very big. So that part of it's not that surprising. But it 
still was a surprise the way these intersected. 

MR. SCHIFF: Now, the CEO of Prevezon was who? 




MR. SIMPSON: Denis Katsyv. 

MR. SCHIFF: And would Mr. Katsyv be considered an oligarch? 

MR. SIMPSON: No. At least he doesn’t have a media profile as an 
oligarch. And that was the thing that I scanned for when the case came in. You 
know, are these guys -- can they get visas to the U.S.? Are they considered 
connected with some Mafia outfit? Do they go to the Kremlin to meet with Putin? 
And there was none of that. 

So, you know, so it seemed okay to me. I wouldn't, you know -- they just 
didn't have much of a profile. And so I figured if they were big oligarchs, and 
especially bad oligarchs, that I would have heard of them. 

MR. SCHIFF: And were you aware of any connection between Mr. Katsyv 
and the Russian Government? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, his father was a -- at the time that! was retained, his 
father was a minister in the Moscow city government. He was the transportation 
minister. And he is later, he is now the deputy head of the state railroad, state 
railroad company. And so that’s a connection. 

MR. SCHIFF: And did the father, to your knowledge, have any 
connections with Mr. Chaika? 

MR. SIMPSON: I have no idea. 

MR. SCHIFF: Ordid Mr. Katsyv have any connections to Mr. 


MR. SIMPSON: Well, what I have heard in recent months is that there is 
some connection, or maybe even read it, I can’t remember, but there is some 
connection between Agalarov and Ms. Veselnitskaya. And I don’t know what it is. 

I don’t even remember where I heard it. 




MR. SCHIFF: Well, the emails would demonstrate some link. 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, right. There was some kind of a - she represented 
him or something. 

MR. SCHIFF: In the litigation, I think as you have described it, Mr. 

Browder would have been a hostile witness or a hostile party to Prevezon's 
interests. Is that fair to say? 


MR. SCHIFF: In that respect, the Kremlin's interests would be aligned with 
Prevezon, not the - who was the other party? 

MR. SIMPSON: The U.S. Justice Department. 

MR. SCHIFF: The U.S. Justice Department. So the Kremlin's interests 
would have been aligned against U.S. Treasury or U.S. Justice Department and 
with Prevezon. 

MR. SIMPSON: Yes. And at the time this case got underway, it seemed . 
pretty obscure. It was a civil money laundering case. But in retrospect, what I 
think might have happened was that ~ so when the case started it wasn't about 
William Browder. It was about a technical argument about whether you could 
prove that money from something in Russia went into this real estate 
development. And so it didn’t have a political dimension to me particularly, it was 
a technical argument. And that is how the case was introduced to me, and the 
fight was going to be over what the bank records showed. 

So it was a reasonably interesting case, but not very potentially 
controversial. But as we went into discovery, you know, the discovery trail led to 

Vladimir Putin's biggest critic. And, you know, at that point, because it became 
sort of a focal point of the case where the allegations came from and whether they 




could be supported, you know, I ended up doing work on Vladimir Putin's biggest 
critic. And you know, that wasn't what I set out to do. And it made me 

MR. SCHIFF: But it may have been within the understanding of either the 
Kremlin or the Russian intelligence agencies that the party on the opposite side of 
this, the party that had instigated this was their nemesis, Mr. Browder. 

MR. SIMPSON: You know, if you want to spin it out far enough, it's 
possible they knew that's where the trail would go. But we didn't -- at least the 
other lawyers and I didn't know that was where this would head. 

MR. SCHIFF: The reason I am asking this is you have Ms. Veselnitskaya 
working on this litigation, which leads to Mr. Browder. 

MR. SIMPSON: Uh-huh. 

MR. SCHIFF: And therefore leads to the Magnitsky Act. You have Ms. 
Veselnitskaya at this meeting at Trump Tower about the Magnitsky Act. You 
have the Magnitsky Act being one of the highest priorities of the Kremlin to repeal. 

Does that in your experience tell you something about Ms. Veselnitskaya's 
importance to the Kremlin, relationship with the Kremlin? Is it suggestive in any 
way that she may have had a bigger role than you knew at the time? 

MR. SIMPSON: Well, I mean let me say, you know, I have certainly been 
mulling whether my original view of her as a minor player was wrong. And I think 
it would be natural to ask yourself that. But I will add that, I mean a couple of 
things there. One, you know, this legislative issue wasn't about overturning the 
Magnitsky Act, it was about the name of some global Magnitsky Act, which as I 
understand it wasn't really even targeted at Russia. So, you know, it's unclear to 
me what the real plan was if there was some Kremlin plan behind all of that. 




So, you know, what I think happened was that when they saw that we were 
finding stuff that tended to discredit Mr. Browder -- so the Russians have been 
trying to discredit Browder forever. And they churn out fake news on Browder. 
They do fake movies accusing him of murder and all this other baloney. And my 
view is that when we started producing actual information in court that was 
embarrassing to him, and tended to raise questions about his activities in Russia, 
that they opportunistically began to try to exploit that. 

And that would fit with my view of Ms. Veselnitskaya as well, which is that 
she viewed the success that we had in finding certain kinds of information as a 
ticket to political advancement in Moscow. There is only one way up in Russia, 
and that is do something that impresses Vladimir Putin. And so, you know, I 
could be wrong, but we viewed her as a very ambitious but not particularly, you 
know, someone with a lot of juice. 

MR. SCHIFF: That sounds like a description of Carter Page. 

MR. SIMPSON: But I could be wrong about all of this and I am prepared to 
be wrong because these people are Russians. So knowing that I don’t know who 
everyone is when you are dealing with Russians, I avoid trying to - I avoid 
situations where something could happen that I would be compromised. 

So I always refuse to go to Russia. And I only did this case because it was 
one of my oldest clients. And I still got sucked into something that, you know, I 
mean thank God I didn't know anything about the Trump Tower meeting or I would 
really have some explaining to do. 

MR. SCFIIFF: One way for a young -- well, I don't know about young, but 
one way for an ambitious lawyer to move up the ladder you said was to do 
something to please Vladimir Putin. Establishing a relationship with a potential 




future President of the United States and offering help against their opponent 
would be one way of doing that, would it not? 

MR. SIMPSON: That's in character with the Natalia that I know. She 
seemed ambitious and opportunistic. 

MR. SCHIFF: All right. Let me ask you a few last questions. Did you 
come across in your research anything related to the allegation you may have 
seen publicly that Erik Prince had a meeting in the Seychelles arranged by foreign 
parties? Did that allegation or any facts related to it come to your attention? 

MR. SIMPSON: Not specifically that, but Erik Prince's role in the sort of 
back of a lot of this stuff has come to my attention. And one of the --1 guess I 
would rather not say anything else. But I just think that he seems to be connected 
to some of the people who have been making accusations against me. And I 
have questions about whether he is the one who is -- 

MR. SCHIFF: And in terms of your investigation, though, did you find any 
facts related to his foreign travel or his relationships or any work that he was doing 
on behalf of the Trump campaign? 

MR. SIMPSON: Not that I can specifically remember. 

MR. SCHIFF: It's been publicly reported that Don Jr. went to Paris, had a 
meeting with a pro-Russian think tank. Was that a subject of your investigation as 

MR. SIMPSON: Yes. We did a lot of work on — so Russia is a major 
theater of operation - I am sorry, France is a major theater of operation for the 
Russian services. And they have a lot of, you know, phony think tanks and other 
operations there. And they were very active in the French Presidential election, and 
they have been very — there is a guy named Malofeev who sort of runs 




those operations for the Russians in that area. And we looked at all that and 
mapped all that and concluded that, you know, it was part of the operation. 

But beyond that, I believe, you know, we were — we were told that Kushner 
had also been to Paris, but I don't think we could ever confirm that. But we 
looked at some of those people, and they were definitely Russian assets would be 
my view. 

MR. SCHIFF: Professor Mifsud come to your attention? 

MR. SIMPSON: No. Professor Mifsud did not come to my attention. 

Q How about Mr. Papadopoulos? 


MR. SCHIFF: And in what way? 

MR. SIMPSON: As someone who was a clone of Carter Page and had 
connections to the Russians. 

MR. SCHIFF: Did you come across any facts related to Papadopoulos that 
were beyond those that were contained in the information? 

MR. SIMPSON: I don't think so. We have been looking at him for a while, 
but I was still surprised by what I saw there. 

MR. SCHIFF: You mentioned a Florida woman, Russian origin, worked for 
Gazprom, connected to the embassy, connected to Michael Cohen. If you are 
able to refresh your recollection and provide her name to the committee, that 
would be helpful. 


MR. SCHIFF: The kompromat which has become so much a focus of any 
discussion of the dossier, are there any of the facts related to that, the salacious 




video that were not a part of the dossier or other like allegations that came to your 

MR. SIMPSON: No. I mean, you know, we were asked about other 
allegations by reporters that didn't come from us, and I am not - we were asked 
about earlier stories of earlier trips and whether other things had happened, and 
similar things. Actually not similar things, more sort of less colorful. But anyway, 
girls. And, you know, we didn't - I mean to be clear, we never set out to 
investigate whether Donald Trump or anyone else was engaged in sexual activity 
for the sort of practical reason that I just didn't think it was a useful subject to 

I investigate business stuff and financial crime and corruption and those 
kind of things. That's my gig. So people came to us with stories that we never 
pursued. And we were recently asked by some reporter did you write a memo in 
2015 about — I had no idea what they were talking about. You know, we threw a 
line in the water and Moby Dick came back, and we didn’t know what to do with it 
at first. So anyway. 

MR. SCHIFF: And, you know, from your description of your relationship 
with Mr. Steele, I take it that you sent him to find what he could find. You didn’t 
send him to go find evidence of candidate Trump entertaining women in whatever 
way in a hotel. 

MR. SIMPSON: No. But I think this underscores a really important point, 
which is that so kompromat is a big deal for Chris Steele. It is not a big deal for 
Glenn Simpson, because my professional world is financial crime and politics and 
the other things. But he is in Russian intelligence. You know, that’s his 
specialty, and a lot of what you are worrying about. 




So when he explains all this, he has other cases where people have been 
kompromatted. And it’s something he has dealt with his entire adult life. So I 
can't tell you he wasn't looking for that, because it was probably something that 
was among the things that he would have asked someone to check. 

MR. SCHIFF: It is Russian tradecraft that he would have been familiar 


MR. SIMPSON: Correct. So when the information comes back that there 
is kompromat but that there is also a conspiracy afoot, you know, each of us sees 
our piece of the elephant, right? I am like, oh, my God, there is a conspiracy 
afoot. And he is like, oh, my God, there is a kompromat problem. 

So when he says we have got to go to the FBI, or he wants to go to the FBI, 
he is specifically concerned about the kompromat issue and whether, you know, a 
Republican -- whether a candidate for President of the United States, a nominee 
has been kompromatted. And he feels that it’s his duty to report that. 

I assume because part of his old job was reporting politicians who had been 
kompromatted, and that he thought it was, you know, de rigeur or something. But 
my feeling was, you know, we should report the rest of this alleged crime. I mean 
I was comfortable with him doing it. , 

MR. SCHIFF: We yield back. 

We are adjourned, sir. 

MR. SCHIFF: Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 8:20 p.m.-, the interview was concluded.]